Vine Street Archaeological Investigation Information

Due Diligence Excavations for the Vine Street Lot
DUE DILIGENCE ARCHAEOLOGICAL

INVESTIGATIONS OF THE
VINE STREET LOT
NEW EXCAVATIONS AT THE WEST SHIPYARD/HERTZ LOT (36PH0028), PHILADELPHIA,
PENNSYLVANIA
Prepared for:
The Durst Organization
Prepared by:
The Durst Organization AECOM

October 2019
DUE DILIGENCE ARCHAEOLOGICAL

INVESTIGATIONS OF THE
VINE STREET LOT
NEW EXCAVATIONS AT THE WEST SHIPYARD/HERTZ LOT (36PH0028),
PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA
ER # 42019-0959-101
Prepared for:
The Durst Organization
One Bryant Park
New York, NY 10036
Prepared by:
Joel Dworsky M.A., R.P.A.,
Jordan E. Smith,
Abdul Jones,
Christopher DiMaiolo,
and
Joelle Browning
AECOM
437 High Street
Burlington, NJ 08016
aecom.com
October 2019

Abstract
Between July 22, 2019, and September 6, 2019, AECOM conducted an archaeological due diligence
investigation of the Vine Street lot, a 1.5-acre (65,293-square-foot) parking lot that at the time of excavation
was operated by the Delaware River Waterfront Corporation (DRWC) but is now under the ownership of
the Durst Organization. This project area encompassed the bulk of the former city block between Water
Street and Columbus Boulevard and Vine Street and Callowhill Street in the Northern Liberties
neighborhood of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The archaeological due diligence testing effort was conducted
on behalf of the Durst Organization who plans to develop the lot. The archaeological due diligence testing
utilized five mechanically excavated test trenches to sample targeted areas within the parking lot. The goal
of this effort was to establish the presence or absence of cultural deposits, assess the degree of
preservation/disturbance, and identify cultural features. Trenches were placed in locations designed to
provide information about areas not previously surveyed during the two preceding archaeological efforts
and to examine the locations of known disturbances to assess the degree to which these ground-disturbing
actions have impacted the archaeological record.
All of the five archaeological trenches excavated produced archaeological features and intact cultural
deposits. Trench 1, in the northern part of the lot, contained features documenting late-eighteenth-century
wharf construction and deposits of woodworking debris, the remains of seventeenth- and early-eighteenth-
century woodworking activity along the Delaware riverbank. Trench 2 revealed a mid-nineteenth-century
structural foundation and associated floor, while uncovering the presence of late-eighteenth- and early-
nineteenth-century occupation surfaces. Trench 2 also produced a brick-lined well shaft cut into this early
historic occupation surface, likely dating to the first half of the nineteenth century. Trench 3 produced a
similar assemblage to Trench 2, also revealing a mid-nineteenth-century structure and floor and a brick-
lined well cut into an earlier historic occupation surface. Trench 3 also contained a deposit that likely
represented an early-eighteenth-century occupation surface along the Delaware riverbank. The substantial
homogenous fill deposit encountered in the western end of Trench 3 marked the extent of twentieth-century
disturbance caused during the installation and subsequent removal of an underground fuel tank from the
Hertz occupation of the lot. In the southeastern part of the lot, Trench 4 produced additional evidence of
mid-nineteenth-century wharf buildings, as well as deposits related to late-eighteenth-century wharf
construction and usage. Trench 4 contained an artifact-rich historic occupation surface dating to the late
eighteenth and early nineteenth century; this deposit contained foundations related to a building constructed
upon a late-eighteenth to early-nineteenth-century wharf surface. Trench 5, in the southwestern part of the
lot, uncovered additional early-nineteenth-century wharf building foundations; it also provided evidence that
the grillage wharf technique was used to construct some of the early wharves in the southern part of the
project area.
The current and previous excavations within the Vine Street lot have demonstrated that most of the lot
maintains archaeological integrity and contains intact archaeological deposits. Given this demonstrated
archaeological integrity and the established archaeological significance of the site, as evident by its
inclusion as a listed property on both the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places and the National Register
of Historic Places, AECOM recommends that an archaeological data recovery be performed as mitigation
to disturbances caused by the proposed development of the site. This document contains AECOM’s
conclusions pertaining to the current excavation effort, as well as recommendations and preliminary
research questions for such a data-recovery effort.

i
Table of Contents
Abstract........................................................................................................................... i
1. Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1.1
Acknowledgments ..................................................................................................... 1.1
2. Project Location and General Description ...................................................... 2.4
Physiography, Hydrography, Geology, and Land Use ........................................... 2.4
Current Land Use ....................................................................................................... 2.7
3. Background and Context .................................................................................. 3.1
Precontact and Contact Period Overview ............................................................... 3.1
Paleoindian Period (Circa 10,000–8000 B.C.) ...................................................................... 3.1
Archaic Period (Circa 8000–1800 B.C.) ................................................................................ 3.1
Woodland Period (Circa 800 B.C.–A.D. 1500) ...................................................................... 3.3
Contact Period (Circa 1500–1650)........................................................................................ 3.3
General Philadelphia Settlement History................................................................. 3.4
Site-Specific Context ................................................................................................. 3.6
Early Waterfront Development and Shipbuilding .................................................................. 3.6
Early Mercantile Period ....................................................................................................... 3.10
The Great Conflagration of 1850......................................................................................... 3.13
Post-Great Conflagration Waterfront Redevelopment Period ............................................. 3.14
Late Nineteenth-Century ..................................................................................................... 3.17
Modern Period ..................................................................................................................... 3.17
Previous Archaeological Research ........................................................................ 3.19
1987 Excavations ................................................................................................................ 3.20
2012 Excavations ................................................................................................................ 3.20
4. Methodology ...................................................................................................... 4.1
Research Design ........................................................................................................ 4.1
Excavation Methodology........................................................................................... 4.2
Artifact Processing and Analysis ............................................................................. 4.4
Terminus Post Quem ............................................................................................................. 4.4
Percent Contribution.............................................................................................................. 4.4
5. Field Results ...................................................................................................... 5.1
Trench 1 ...................................................................................................................... 5.1
Test Unit 1 ............................................................................................................................. 5.3
Feature 1 (Context 7) ............................................................................................................ 5.4
Feature 2 (Context 8) ............................................................................................................ 5.4
Feature 3 (Context 9) ............................................................................................................ 5.5
Feature 4 (Context 17) .......................................................................................................... 5.5
Feature 5 (Context 17) .......................................................................................................... 5.5
Feature 6 (Context 87) .......................................................................................................... 5.6
Feature 17 (Context 82) ........................................................................................................ 5.6
Feature 18 (Context 88) ........................................................................................................ 5.6
Trench 2 ...................................................................................................................... 5.7
Feature 9 (Contexts 42 and 43) .......................................................................................... 5.11
Feature 10 (Context 45) ...................................................................................................... 5.11
Feature 11 (Contexts 47 and 50/67) ................................................................................... 5.11
Feature 12 (Context 48) ...................................................................................................... 5.11

ii
Feature 13 (Context 49) ...................................................................................................... 5.13

Feature 14 (Context 67/50) ................................................................................................. 5.13
Feature 15 (Contexts 52–54 and 75) .................................................................................. 5.14
Feature 16 (Contexts 58, 72, 83, and 77) ........................................................................... 5.14
Trench 3 .................................................................................................................... 5.16
Test Unit 2 and Test Unit 2 Southwest Extension ............................................................... 5.19
Feature 19 (Context 104) .................................................................................................... 5.20
Feature 20 (Context 97) ...................................................................................................... 5.20
Feature 21 (Context 115) .................................................................................................... 5.20
Feature 22 (Context 108) .................................................................................................... 5.21
Feature 23 (Context 116) .................................................................................................... 5.21
Feature 31 (Contexts 123 and179) ..................................................................................... 5.21
Feature 34 (Context 174) .................................................................................................... 5.22
Feature 35 (Context 175) .................................................................................................... 5.22
Feature 36 (Context 176) .................................................................................................... 5.23
Feature 45 (Context 137) .................................................................................................... 5.23
Trench 4 .................................................................................................................... 5.23
Test Unit 4 ........................................................................................................................... 5.27
Feature 24 (Context 225) .................................................................................................... 5.28
Feature 37 (Context 186) .................................................................................................... 5.28
Feature 40 (Context 210) .................................................................................................... 5.28
Feature 42 (Context 212) .................................................................................................... 5.28
Feature 44 (Context 214) .................................................................................................... 5.29
Trench 5 .................................................................................................................... 5.29
Feature 25 (Context 136) .................................................................................................... 5.34
Feature 26 (Context 180) .................................................................................................... 5.34
Feature 27 (Context 162) .................................................................................................... 5.34
Feature 28 (Context 163) .................................................................................................... 5.34
Feature 29 (Context 172) .................................................................................................... 5.35
Feature 30 (Context 181) .................................................................................................... 5.35
Feature 32 (Context 182) .................................................................................................... 5.35
Feature 38 (Context 200) .................................................................................................... 5.35
Feature 39 (Context 201) .................................................................................................... 5.36
Feature 41 (Context 211) .................................................................................................... 5.37
Feature 43 (Context 213) .................................................................................................... 5.37
6. Site Interpretation .............................................................................................. 6.1
7. Summary and Recommendations .................................................................... 7.1
Summary .................................................................................................................... 7.1
Recommendations ..................................................................................................... 7.1
Modern Period ....................................................................................................................... 7.2
Late-Nineteenth-Century Commercial Period ....................................................................... 7.2
Post-Great Conflagration Waterfront Redevelopment Period ............................................... 7.2
Early Mercantile Period ......................................................................................................... 7.3
Early Waterfront Development and Shipbuilding .................................................................. 7.4
8. Works Cited ........................................................................................................ 8.1
Appendix A. Master Context Log .............................................................................. A.1
Appendix B. Property Chronology and Deed Research Summary ........................ B.1

iii
Appendix C. Context Percent Contribution Tables ................................................. C.1

Appendix D. Artifact Inventory .................................................................................. D.1
Appendix E. Qualifications of Authors ..................................................................... E.1
Figures
Figure 1.1. Map showing the location of the Vine Street Lot project. ................................................................ 1.3
Figure 2.1. Map showing the project area relative to its physiographic province. ............................................. 2.5
Figure 2.2. Map showing the project APE relative to the local bedrock geology. .............................................. 2.6
Figure 3.1. A vessel under construction at the West Shipyard (right edge of frame) with the Penny Pot house
(#24) behind. Extract from The South East Prospect of the City of Philadelphia by Peter Cooper,
circa 1718 (Cooper 1720). .............................................................................................................. 3.8
Figure 3.2. A view of the West Shipyard wharf and shipbuilding within the project area, circa 1754. Extract from
An East Prospect of the City of Philadelphia by George Heap and engraved by Thomas Jeffreys
(Heap, Scull and Jefferys 1754). .................................................................................................... 3.8
Figure 3.3. Overlay of the 1762 map of Philadelphia (Scull, Clarkson and Biddle 1762) .................................. 3.9
Figure 3.4. Overlay of map To Thomas Mifflin, governor and commander in chief of the state of Pennsylvania,
this plan of the city and suburbs of Philadelphia is respectfully inscribed by the editor, 1794 (Folie
and Allardice 1794) ....................................................................................................................... 3.11
Figure 3.5. Overlay of map This plan of the city of Philadelphia and its environs…, circa 1796 (Hills 1796) .. 3.11
Figure 3.6. Overlay of map Wharves-Vine to Callowhill, circa 1800, mapmaker unknown, reprinted in
Philadelphia and Her Merchants (Ritter 1860) .............................................................................. 3.12
Figure 3.7. Overlay of map Plan of the city of Philadelphia and adjoining districts: shewing the existing and
contemplated improvements, circa 1830 (Tanner 1837) ............................................................... 3.12
Figure 3.8. Overly of map Map of the City of Philadelphia together with all the surrounding Districts (Sidney
1849) ............................................................................................................................................ 3.13
Figure 3.9. A print by Charles Rosenberg showing the explosion that started the Great Conflagration
(Rosenberg 1850)......................................................................................................................... 3.14
Figure 3.10. Overlay of map Plan of Delaware Avenue from Vine St. to Cohocksink Creek in the District of the
Northern Liberties, September 27, 1850 (Siddall 1850). ............................................................... 3.15
Figure 3.11. Overlay of map “11th Ward – Plate 43” from the Hexamer and Locher Maps of the City of
Philadelphia, Volume 4 (Hexamer & Locher 1859). ...................................................................... 3.16
Figure 3.12. Overlay of “Plate I” from City Atlas of Philadelphia, Vol. 6, Wards 2 through 20, 29 and 31, circa
1875 (Hopkins 1875). ................................................................................................................... 3.16
Figure 3.13. Overlay of map “Plan 20” from Baist's Property Atlas of the City and County of Philadelphia, Penna,
complete in one volume, 1895) (Baist 1885). ............................................................................... 3.17
Figure 3.14. Overlay of map “Sheet 209” from Insurance maps of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Vol.3, 1916
(Sanborn Map Company 1916). ................................................................................................... 3.18
Figure 3.15. A map of the Vine Street lot showing the locations of previous surveys and key features. ........... 3.19
Figure 4.1. A map of the Vine Street lot showing the placement of the current trenches and test units relative to
previous excavations. ..................................................................................................................... 4.3
Figure 4.2. Percent contribution graphed.......................................................................................................... 4.5
Figure 5.1. Trench 1, plan view and east wall profile. ....................................................................................... 5.2
Figure 5.2. Trench 2 northern half, plan view and west wall profile. ................................................................. 5.9
Figure 5.3. Trench 2 southern half, plan view and west wall profile. ............................................................... 5.10
Figure 5.4. Trench 3, plan view and south wall profile. ................................................................................... 5.18
Figure 5.5. Trench 4, northern half, plan view and east wall profile. ............................................................... 5.25
Figure 5.6. Trench 4, southern half, plan view and east wall profile. .............................................................. 5.26
Figure 5.7. Trench 5, southern half, plan view and west wall profile. .............................................................. 5.32
Figure 5.8. Trench 5, northern half, plan view and west wall profile. .............................................................. 5.33
Figure 5.9. Plan view of the closing extent of the north end of Trench 5. ....................................................... 5.37

iv
Figure 6.1. Overlay of circa- 1800 map of waterfront showing the correspondence of walls with the edge of
alley on the West lot (left). .............................................................................................................. 6.2
Figure 8.1. Vine Street lot properties c. 1695 .................................................................................................. B.9
Figure 8.2. Vine Street lot properties c. 1720 ................................................................................................ B.10
Figure 8.3. Vine Street lot properties c. 1750 ................................................................................................. B.11
Figure 8.5. Vine Street lot properties c. 1766 (Samuel Shoemaker swapped lots with the Proprietors and
Callowhill Street moved north). .................................................................................................... B.13
Figure 8.8. Vine Street lot properties c. 1811 ................................................................................................. B.16
Figure 8.12. Vine Street lot properties c. 1900 ............................................................................................... B.20
Figure 8.13. Context 9, Percent Contribution..................................................................................................... C.1
Figure 8.14. Context 21, Percent Contribution................................................................................................... C.1
Figure 8.18. Context 104, Percent Contribution................................................................................................. C.3
Figure 8.20. Context 117, Percent Contribution ................................................................................................. C.4
Tables
Table 4.1. Example of Percent Contribution (only five years are shown as an example) ............................... 4.5
Photos
Photo 2.1. A view of the project area looking southwest toward the stone retaining wall along the edge of
Water Street. .................................................................................................................................. 2.7
Photo 2.2. A view of the project APE looking southwest toward Vine Street from the entrance of the parking lot.
....................................................................................................................................................... 2.7
Photo 3.1. A view looking southwest at the Vine Street lot from the southwest corner of Delaware Avenue and
Callowhill (left). A view of Delaware Avenue facing north, showing its relationship to the railyard and
sidewalk (right). (Philadelphia Department of Records Public Works 43313-14-33296 and Public
Works 43313-14-33290). .............................................................................................................. 3.18
Photo 3.2. A view of the fully excavated shipway found during the 1987 excavations (Weber and Yamin
1988/2006) ................................................................................................................................... 3.20
Photo 3.3. Logs forming part of a grillage wharf (Feature 6) located 6 feet below the surface of the parking lot
(John Milner Associates, Inc. 2013, 32). ....................................................................................... 3.21

v
Photo 5.1. Test Unit 1 In-Progress Planview. Context 7, 21, and 6 .................................................................. 5.3
Photo 5.2. Feature 1 profile. Context 7 and Context 8 overlying Context 51 (left); Test Unit 1 closing plan view.
Feature 1 and 2 including Context 7, 8, 21, and 51 (right). ............................................................. 5.4
Photo 5.3. Plan view photo of the Feature 3 matrix, showing the dark soil and wood chunks (bottom) and the
semi-articulated planking of Feature 4 (top). .................................................................................. 5.5
Photo 5.4. A view of the Feature 5 timber in profile, showing its thickness and position relative to the Feature
1/2 foundation. ................................................................................................................................ 5.5
Photo 5.5. Profile of the west wall of the north end of Trench 1, showing the Feature 6 post in profile. .......... 5.5
Photo 5.6. Feature 17 bisected. ....................................................................................................................... 5.6
Photo 5.7. Feature 18 along the east profile. Feature 5 sat slightly higher than Feature 18 ............................ 5.6
Photo 5.8. Plan view of the south end of Trench 5, showing the remnant joists beneath the Context 47 floor. 5.7
Photo 5.9. Hand-hewn timber with mortises, beveling, and an iron spike. ....................................................... 5.8
Photo 5.10. A view looking south toward Vine Street during the 1987 excavation, showing covered structure
with bollards (Weber and Yamin 1988/2006, 13). ........................................................................... 5.8
Photo 5.11. West wall profile of Trench 2, showing the Feature 9 post adjacent to the Feature 10 wall. ......... 5.11
Photo 5.12. South profile of the Feature 10 stone wall. ................................................................................... 5.12
Photo 5.13. A view of the Feature 11 plank floor in Trench 2, showing how it meets up with the Feature 12 stone
pillar base, facing north. ............................................................................................................... 5.12
Photo 5.14. A view of Feature 13, the concrete footer for to metal post (right). ............................................... 5.13
Photo 5.15. Plan view of the Feature 14 subfloor of compacted coarse sand supporting the wood floor joists of
Feature 15. ................................................................................................................................... 5.14
Photo 5.16. West wall profile of Trench 2, showing the Feature 16 well in profile. The well shaft was empty
beneath its cap. ............................................................................................................................ 5.15
Photo 5.17. Test Unit 2 Southwest Expansion, Context 113, Context 117, and Context 123 in plan view........ 5.19
Photo 5.18. Feature 19 and Feature 20. .......................................................................................................... 5.20
Photo 5.19. Feature 21 cutting through Context 110, 105, 107, 111, 112, and 113. ......................................... 5.21
Photo 5.20. Post and posthole of Feature 23 in the southwest corner of Test Unit 2. ...................................... 5.21
Photo 5.21. Brick shaft of Feature 31. ............................................................................................................. 5.22
Photo 5.22. Trench 4 west profile and Unit 4 west profile. ............................................................................... 5.27
Photo 5.23. Unit 4 closing plan view after removing Context 197 and Context 198. Feature 42 (stone
foundation) is sitting on Context 199. ........................................................................................... 5.27
Photo 5.24. Southern end of Trench 4 plan view. Shown: Context 197, Feature 42, and Feature 44. ............. 5.28
Photo 5.25. Feature 30 post (left); Feature 29 wall (right). .............................................................................. 5.35
Photo 5.26. A view of the north end of Trench 5 showing the Feature 32 floor surface in situ. ........................ 5.35
Photo 5.27. Feature 39 timber in Trench 5....................................................................................................... 5.36

vi
1. Introduction
The following report presents the results of archaeological work performed for the Durst Organization as
due diligence testing in preparation for the development of the Vine Street Lot in Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. The proposed development area, or area of potential effects (APE), was formerly a municipal
parking lot operated by the Delaware River Waterfront Corporation (DRWC). The APE is bounded to the
north by Callowhill Street, to the east by Columbus Boulevard, to the south by Vine Street, and to the west
by Water Street (Figure 1.1).
The development of the Vine Street lot will involve the construction of a multi-story, mixed-use structure
within a portion of the lot. While plans for this development have not yet been finalized, it is anticipated that
the foundation and support systems for the new structure will require ground disturbance which could result
in disturbance to archaeological resources preserved within the lot.
The Hertz Lot/West Shipyard, Penny Pot House archaeological site (36PH0028) encompasses broadly the
same boundaries as the Vine Street lot. As this site is listed on the National Register of Historic Places
(NRHP), archaeological testing and, if necessary, archaeological mitigation of construction impacts was
made conditions of the sale of the property as established in the project Request for Proposals (RFP). The
project area has been archaeologically investigated twice, once in 1987 by the City of Philadelphia(those
excavations were focused in the northern part of the lot and located an intact early-nineteenth-century
shipyard) and again in 2012 by John Milner Associates (whose efforts were limited to the southern portion
of the lot and focused on locating evidence of the seventeenth-century West Shipyard occupation). Despite
these previous surveys, large sections of the proposed development area remained unexplored. AECOM’s
current due diligence testing targeted areas of the lot that had yet to be archaeologically sampled during
previous efforts and where the presence, nature, and integrity of cultural resources remained unknown.
This due diligence testing effort was undertaken in order to aid the Durst Corporation in their project
planning for the development of the Vine Street lot by identifying areas of intact archaeology, while
assessing the archaeological integrity of areas that have been impacted by modern development, like the
Hertz maintenance facility.
This report presents the findings of the due diligence archaeological testing consisting of five mechanically
excavated test trenches within the boundaries of the Vine Street Lot. This due diligence archaeological
testing was performed in accordance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and
was conducted in accordance with requirements the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission
(PHMC) set forth in Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Pennsylvania (PHMC 2016). AECOM
archaeologists conducted the field investigations between July 22 and September 6, 2019. Oversight of
these excavations was performed by the Philadelphia Historical Commission (PHC) and the Pennsylvania
Historical Museum Commission (PHMC). Copies of this report and all field notes, photographs, and project
maps are on file at the offices of AECOM in Burlington, New Jersey.
Acknowledgments
Excavations at the Vine Street lot were performed on behalf of the Durst Organization. AECOM would like
to offer thanks for their support of public archaeology at the site, and their assistance in bringing the
archaeological interpretation of the site to the general public of Philadelphia. Additional thanks go out to
those members of the public who attended the two public archaeology days, and to Doug Mooney of
AECOM for his aid in regard to public archaeology and client coordination, which both helped make those
events and the excavation a success.
AECOM would like to thank the DRWC for its support during the planning and execution of the excavation,
with special thanks to Ben Rantuccio, who assisted AECOM by organizing the relocation of cars within the
lot, clearing the area for excavation. Special thanks also go out to J. G. Crozier Contractors Inc. for their
help with the mechanical excavation and site setup.

1.1
Our thanks go out to Jordan Smith, Christopher DiMaiolo, Abdul Jones, and Joelle Browning for their tireless
efforts in the field under challenging conditions. Further thanks go out to them for their efforts in aid of writing
up interpretations of the features they excavated. Our gratitude to Melanie Millman for her diligent efforts
drafting the profile and plan view drawings for the report. Finally, thanks go out to Carolyn Horlacher, John
Stanzeski, Mozelle Shamash-Rosenthal, and Lindsay Adams for their efforts processing and cataloging the
artifacts recovered during excavation.

1.2
Figure 1.1. Map showing the location of the Vine Street Lot project.

1.3
2. Project Location and General

Description
Physiography, Hydrography, Geology, and Land Use
The APE is situated between Callowhill and Vine Streets and between Water Street and Columbus
Boulevard in the Northern Liberties neighborhood of Philadelphia. This location is located within the
Lowland and Intermediate Upland section of the Atlantic Coastal Plain physiographic province (Figure 2.1).
The Lowland and Intermediate Upland section is an area of southeastern Pennsylvania between the
Delaware River to the east and the Piedmont Upland section to the west and north. Geologically, the project
APE sits upon a portion of this deposit referred to as the Trenton Gravel Formation (Qt) (Figure 2.2). The
Trenton Gravel Formation is characterized by gray or pale-reddish-brown, very gravelly sand interstratified
with cross-bedded sand and clay-silt beds. This deposit type is known to include areas of Holocene alluvium
and swamp deposits (Berg 1980).
The project area is located along the banks of the Delaware River in the Lower Delaware River, Watershed
F. The project APE is located on sections of former floodplain and river channel along the western bank of
the Delaware River. This area has been successively infilled and built out into the river over the last four
centuries. The average ground elevation of the project area is on average 7–8 feet above mean sea level
(amsl) at the western edge of the APE, along Water Street, and 5–6 feet amsl at the eastern edge of the
APE, along Columbus Boulevard.
Both the USDA Web Soil Survey application and the Soil Survey of Bucks and Philadelphia Counties,
Pennsylvania, classify the project area as Ub-Urban land (Agriculture 1975). This soil classification is very
general and used to describe soils within urban environments that are typically disturbed. The classification
of the area as Ub-Urban land would seem to suggest that an area has been modified or disturbed, which
does appear to be the case within the APE. However, this disturbance has not eliminated the potential for
cultural deposits. Cultural deposits in this area were found cut into the C horizon, as well as within historic
fill episodes that, once established, became historic living surfaces.

2.4
Figure 2.1. Map showing the project area relative to its physiographic province.

2.5
Figure 2.2. Map showing the project APE relative to the local bedrock geology.

2.6
Current Land Use

The project area, which encompasses approximately 65,293 square feet, was at the time of excavation a
macadam-paved municipal parking lot operated by the DRWC. The western edge of the site is dominated
by a mortared stone retaining wall of about 6 feet in height, which separates the parking area from Water
Street to the west. The perimeter of the site is protected and delineated by a black metal fence. The only
standing structure within the parking lot is the toll booth at its entrance.
Photo 2.1. A view of the project area looking southwest Photo 2.2. A view of the project APE looking southwest
toward the stone retaining wall along the edge of Water toward Vine Street from the entrance of the parking lot.
Street.

2.7
3. Background and Context

Precontact and Contact Period Overview
Eastern North American prehistory is usually discussed in terms of major time periods characterized by
differing cultural configurations and adaptations to changes in the natural and cultural environment. The
following pages briefly outline the major cultural and environmental constructs presently recognized for the
northeastern United States, with particular reference to the greater Delaware Valley.
Paleoindian Period (Circa 10,000–8000 B.C.)

Paleoindian societies were groups highly mobile hunters of late Pleistocene megafauna, such as mastodon,
mammoth, horse, camel, and bison (Mason 1962, Gardner 1974). Artifacts diagnostic of this period are
uncommon throughout the East in general, and habitation sites are rare. The fact that these people were
probably nomadic or otherwise mobile hunter-gatherers, most likely organized into tightly knit yet fluid band
structures, contributed to the low artifact/site density. Such societies typically leave little trace on the
landscape. However, a relatively high concentration of Paleoindian sites is known for the Delaware and
Hudson River valleys of northeastern Pennsylvania, southeastern New York, and northwestern New Jersey
(Eisenberg 1978, 6). Among the more important of these is the Shawnee Minisink Site, which dates to the
ninth millennium B.C. and was interpreted as evidence for a more generalized foraging adaptation during
this period (McNett 1985).
In studying Paleoindian occupations of the Hudson and Delaware Valleys, Eisenberg argued that the
retreating Laurentide Ice Sheet resulted in “glacial disruptions,” producing a patchy environment of “both
coniferous and deciduous elements” (Eisenberg 1978, 122). This observation was supported by
palynological studies and the remains of animals adapted to a variety of settings. Based on site locations,
Eisenberg suggested that Paleoindian groups were keyed into the resources associated with major
streams, lowland swamps, and upland deciduous forests (Eisenberg 1978, 138). As a result, a wider range
of food resources appears to have been exploited by Paleoindians than has been traditionally believed
(Dent and Kauffman 1985, Meltzer and Smith 1986, Moeller 1980).
Archaic Period (Circa 8000–1800 B.C.)

The long Archaic period was typically divided into subperiods: Early, Middle, Late, and Terminal. The Early
Archaic (circa 8000–6000 B.C.) witnessed a shift from Pleistocene climates and environments to those of
the essentially modern Holocene. The gradual retreat of the ice sheets and periglacial conditions prior to
circa 7000 B.C. created an environment more favorable to human habitation, with increased carrying
capacities for certain game animals, fish, shellfish, seed plants, nut-bearing tree species, and other
resources. Early Archaic hunters were believed to have largely followed the same mobile lifestyle of their
Paleoindian forebears (Gardner 1974, Custer 1985), while subsequent Middle and Late Archaic societies
underwent cultural changes as they adapted to the changing environment. By the latter half of the Archaic
period, regional diversity in artifact types, styles, and configurations can be recognized that reflect
differential adaptations to local environmental conditions (Cleland 1966, Custer 1984, Custer 1985, Custer
1996), which in turn probably reflects the development of distinct autonomous societies or “tribes.”
Information about site locations and assemblage compositions available for the Early Archaic period
suggests a continuation of the Paleoindian pattern. Dent (1991) and Evans (1985), however, argue that the
incipient Early Archaic lithic assemblage from the Shawnee Minisink Site in the upper Delaware Valley
indicates “a shift toward more specialized procurement activities” (Dent 1991, 133, Evans 1985). They
contrast this with a generalized procurement strategy of the earlier Paleoindian occupants of the site (Dent
1991, 136-137).
Regarding the Middle Archaic (circa 6000–3000 B.C.), Gardner (1977) and others (Custer 1984, Custer
1996, Wall 1991) have observed that considerable changes occurred “in almost all aspects of the cultural

3.1
system...with the…onset of the Middle Archaic” (Gardner 1977, 258). Wall notes that additional ecological
settings were occupied during the Middle Archaic compared to the Paleoindian and Early Archaic periods,
including major and minor upland ridges and floodplains, swamp margins, open valleys, and converging
headwater zones (Wall 1991, 59). Concomitant with the increased range of habitats frequented by Middle
Archaic groups was an increase in assemblage diversity. Gardner (1977) and Wall (1991) indicate that
Middle Archaic sites exhibit a decrease in the use of cryptocrystalline lithic sources and a trend towards
more expedient chipped-stone tools. Drills, chipped-stone axes, and groundstone tools were additions to
Middle Archaic assemblages (Wall 1991, 58). The addition of groundstone implements to the tool kit
suggests a more intensive use of plant resources than in earlier periods, presaging major developments
during the Late Archaic.
The Late Archaic period (circa 3000–1800 B.C.) reflects an increasingly expanded economic base, in which
groups exploited the richness of the now-established oak-dominant forests of the region. They depended
on the procurement of large and small mammals, as well as birds, turtles, fish, and shellfish. Evidence for
the use of nuts, seeds, and other plant foods of the deciduous forests also becomes more common. Gardner
(Gardner 1983, 28-29) and others argue that a shift in focus occurred, whereby riverine resources were
emphasized over forest resources. As such, “Late Archaic base camps were generally associated with low
order streams or floodplain swamps” (Wall 1981, 23). Stewart observes that the Late Archaic pattern was
a continuation of earlier trends; however, populations were larger and denser, and basic subsistence needs
were met with restricted seasonal movements (Stewart 1983, 59-60).
Late Archaic adaptations in the Northeast generally display a marked increase in sedentism, larger and
more permanent settlements, economic diversification, and overall cultural elaboration (Griffin 1967). The
band-territorial settlement pattern ceased to be based on unrestricted wandering in search of foodstuffs.
Rather, more restricted movements were predicated on seasonal exploitation of resources within a more or
less circumscribed band or tribal territory. Typical Late Archaic subsistence-settlement systems involved
spring fishing activities, particularly in areas where spring-spawning species were available (Kingsley and
Benedict 1991). Where present, shellfish could be taken at various times of the year. Floral resources were
the subsistence foci during the summer and fall, with the harvesting of nuts predominating in the latter.
Migratory waterfowl were another fall resource. Game animals were exploited year-round, but particularly
during the winter months when other kinds of food resources were rare or absent. Site types and settlement
patterns were geared toward the seasonal round and were structured by the nature of the population's
seasonal movements. Base settlements in strategic locations, with ancillary or seasonal task-specific
campsites in proximity to particular resources, were a common Late Archaic pattern (Custer 1984, Custer
1996).
Following the Late Archaic was a period known as the Transitional or Terminal Archaic (circa 1800–800
B.C.) (Witthoft 1953). Cultural changes have been consistently documented for this period, but their
significance remains somewhat unclear. Changes and/or additions to the lithic tool kit are evident. Narrow-
bladed projectile points characteristic of the Late Archaic gave way to broad-bladed, triangular or leaf-
shaped points (Kinsey 1972). This development was generally referred to as the Broadspear Tradition.
While Broadspear points are usually believed to postdate the narrow Late Archaic types, it is still uncertain
whether the Broadspears represent a replacement of, or an addition to, the narrow-bladed points (Cook
1976). It is also uncertain whether they functioned as hafted knives or projectile points.
Another important technological innovation that occurred during the Terminal Archaic was the advent of
carved steatite (soapstone) vessels (Witthoft 1953, Kent, Smith and McCann 1971). These stone vessels,
which were apparently used for cooking, were the predecessors of later ceramic pottery, which first
appeared in the Mid-Atlantic region by the end of the period.
Lifestyles and settlement systems show certain continuities with the preceding Late Archaic; i.e., a general
hunter-gatherer system based on a seasonally scheduled resource-procurement round. However, many
Terminal Archaic sites evidence distinct riverine orientations, suggesting a greater reliance on aquatic
resources and/or greater emphasis on watercourses for transportation and communication (Witthoft 1953,
Ritchie 1965). It is believed that the existing trend toward greater sedentism in settlement and the
establishment of societal territories continued throughout the Terminal Archaic period.

3.2
Woodland Period (Circa 800 B.C.–A.D. 1500)

Similar to the Archaic, the Woodland period is divided into Early, Middle, and Late subperiods. The Early
(circa 800 B.C.–A.D. 0) and Middle Woodland (circa A.D. 0–1000) periods generally show marked changes
from their Archaic antecedents throughout most of eastern North America. These periods are characterized
by increasingly stable subsistence economies, in some places involving the practice of horticulture, and
other cultural elaborations such as long-distance trade and the construction of earthen mounds for the
burial of the dead (Griffin 1967). Technological innovations include the development of ceramic vessels for
cooking and storage. By the end of the Middle Woodland period, well-established semisedentary settlement
systems had developed, with societies organized into defined territories (Custer 1984, Custer 1985, Custer
1989, Custer 1996, Raber 1985).
The Early and Middle Woodland periods were first defined based on archaeological data from the Midwest
that indicated two very different cultural configurations were in evidence. In the Delaware Valley, by contrast,
evidence for temporal and cultural continuities prevails over evidence for discontinuities in this region. In
the Delaware Valley, a continuum of development occurred that was marked by subtle changes in artifact
styles. Ceramics show a gradual progression from the thick-walled, crude, poorly made vessels of the
incipient Early Woodland period to the thin-walled, well-made, often elaborately decorated pottery of the
late Middle Woodland period. In the lithic realm, a wide variety of projectile point types were used.
The Late Woodland period (circa A.D. 1000–1650) represents the culmination of the economic and social
trends of preceding periods. Sedentary lifestyles based primarily on corn, bean, and squash agriculture
were the rule throughout the East, though numerous exceptions or otherwise unusual cases were known.
Most of these groups were seasonally sedentary and relied on horticulture and hunting and gathering to
meet their subsistence needs, yet the extent to which agriculture was an important element in the Delaware
Valley subsistence system was not altogether certain at this point, though it appears that agriculture became
a predominant mode of subsistence only by later Late Woodland times (Stewart, Hummer and Custer 1986,
Kraft 1986). During the early Late Woodland, hunting, fishing, and the collecting of wild foodstuffs continued
to be the foci of subsistence pursuits. Late Woodland site types and settlement patterns in the lower
Delaware Valley indicate the presence of a base camp/ancillary camp system, no doubt geared to the
seasonal extraction of food resources (Stewart, Hummer and Custer 1986).
Most Late Woodland sociopolitical systems can be characterized as tribal and egalitarian. However, in many
areas of the Midwest, South, and Southeast, true chiefdoms existed, with real political power and authority
based on lines of succession within high-status kin groups (Griffin 1967, Brown 1971). In the Delaware
Valley and the Mid-Atlantic region in general, political evolution and overall cultural elaboration never
reached the levels attained in other regions prior to the end of the Late Woodland period (Custer 1984,
Custer 1996, Turner 1986). Social organization in the region was most likely based on tribal-level structures
and integrative mechanisms.
Several traditions and phases of Late Woodland occupation have been documented in the Delaware Valley
and adjacent hinterlands, and it seems likely that the region was inhabited by several different societies
rather than a single system. The marked social and cultural diversity evidenced in the greater Delaware
Valley was generally characteristic of the Late Woodland period, during which local/regional societies
appear to have developed out of previous larger social configurations.
Specifically, in the Upper Delaware Valley, the Pahaquarra and Minisink Complexes show cultural ties to
Owasco Tradition societies in New York State (Kraft 1986, Ritchie 1965, Stewart 1985). In the Middle/Lower
Delaware Valley, artifactual evidence principally in the form of Overpeck Incised ceramics indicates the
presence of a different autonomous society (Siegel, Benedict and Kingsley 1999). Similarly, the
Minguannan Complex has been defined for the northern Delmarva Peninsula and the mouth of the
Delaware River (Custer 1984, Stewart 1985).
Contact Period (Circa 1500–1650)

The Contact period was the historically documented time when aboriginal populations in the Northeast
came into contact with European colonizers. The natives indigenous to southeastern Pennsylvania and

3.3
western New Jersey at the time of European contact referred to themselves as the Lenape (the Real or
Original People). Because of their association with the Delaware River, Europeans referred to the natives
as the Delawares. Apparently, no pan-tribal political structure existed among the Lenape; rather, a loosely
knit clan or phratry system served as the societal integrative structure that unified the Lenape population.
It appears that persons belonging to any clan could be found living anywhere within Lenape territory (Kraft
1986b).
Initially, relations with Europeans were largely peaceful, and native and European populations coexisted in
the Delaware Valley. While Lenape interactions with Europeans were generally peaceful, European
diseases like smallpox and measles ravaged the Lenape and drastically reduced the populations in the
region. Throughout the seventeenth century, such diseases continued to plague native populations and as
their numbers decreased, so too did their hold on their ancestral lands (Soderlund 2015). During the
seventeenth century, many Lenape began to adopt aspects of European material culture, often trading land
and furs for items like iron tools and manufactured goods like glass (Kraft 1986b, Newcomb 1956). During
the late seventeenth through early eighteenth centuries, Europeans gradually purchased much of the
Lenape territory in the Lower Delaware Valley. By the early eighteenth century, with their populations
reduced by disease and access to their traditional hunting and gathering grounds forfeited to Europeans,
most of the Lenape in the Lower Delaware Valley had moved north up the Schuylkill and Delaware Rivers
or west to the Susquehanna Valley (Newcomb 1956, Cotter, Roberts and Parrington 1993, Soderlund
2015). The so-called “Walking Purchase of 1737,” involving a tract of land near Kintnersville, Bucks County,
Pennsylvania, represented the last piece of land the Lenape sold to Europeans and effectively closed the
period of Indian-European contact in the Delaware Valley (Becker 1985).
General Philadelphia Settlement History

The first recorded European expedition to the greater Philadelphia area occurred in 1497, when John Cabot
explored the east coast of North American under a commission from Henry VII. However, Europeans did
not settle the area until 1638, when a Swedish expedition of 25 men aboard the Kalmar Nyckel and the
Fogel Grip established Fort Christina on the current site of Wilmington, Delaware. Beginning in 1640,
additional expeditions arrived bringing Swedish, Finnish, Dutch, and German settlers, domestic animals,
supplies, additional soldiers, officers, and a minister (Craig 2001, Carlsson 1995, 172-174, Johnson 1914,
107). Over the next two decades, the inhabitants of New Sweden established numerous settlements on
both sides of the lower Delaware River, including Techoherassi near the mouth of Ridley Creek (1642),
Upland at the mouth of Chester Creek (1642), Finland at Marcus Hook (1642), Fort New Gothenburg above
Darby Creek on Tinicum Island (1643), Kingsessing between Cobbs Creek and the Schuylkill River (1645),
and Fort Korsholm on the Schuylkill River (1647). Nevertheless, populations remained low due to food
shortages, disease, and irregular material support from Sweden, exacerbated by rampant desertion to
nearby Dutch settlements, New Amsterdam, and the English colony at Kent Island (Maryland), provoked
by the unpopular rule of Governor Johan Printz (1643–1653). After more than a decade of occupation and
immigration, less than 400 colonists resided in New Sweden (Craig 2001, Acrelius 1874, 42-47, Scharf and
Westcott 1884, 74). At midcentury, Dutch attempts to counter the growing Swedish presence on the lower
Delaware River by establishing Fort Beverdsreede near the mouth of the Schuylkill River (1648) and Fort
Casimir in Delaware (1651) proved relatively ineffectual until 1655, when Dutch Governor Pieter Stuyvesant
ended Swedish rule of the colony by seizing Fort Christina (Craig 2001, Johnson 1911a, 281, Johnson
1911b, 582-584; 603-610).
At the time of European contact, several hundred Lenape who were organized into highly mobile groups of
15–30 individuals lived in the lower Delaware River Valley, where they hunted, fished, foraged, and engaged
in limited maize horticulture. The Lenape of the Lower Delaware River Valley-known historically as the
Unami (“downriver people”)—quickly assimilated to the European market economy of New Sweden, trading
Indian corn and furs to colonists for European manufactured goods (Becker 1989, 113-114, 117-118).
Although free of large-scale armed conflict for nearly three quarters of a century, early Native-European
interactions in Pennsylvania were profoundly disruptive to Native American communities. Eyewitnesses
indicated that European diseases may have reduced native populations in the late-seventeenth-century
Delaware Valley by as much as 90%. In 1633, competition for hides sparked violent conflicts with the
Susquehannocks that resulted in territorial losses for the Lenape. The demand for alcohol and European

3.4
goods among the Delaware undercut their political and economic autonomy and weakened their resolve in
resisting European encroachment on their territory. And despite the Quaker goals of treating fairly with the
Delaware, cultural misunderstandings about the nature of Native-European land purchases alienated
Native American groups from their traditional territories and set the stage for future conflict. As soon as the
first decade of the eighteenth century, Native Americans were seldom encountered in the colonial
settlements of southeastern Pennsylvania (Sugrue 1992, 11–13, 19–20, 21-25, Zabel 2012, 19–21).
After the Dutch takeover, many Swedes and Finns remained in the colony under the liberal conditions of
Dutch rule and expanded their settlements in the Lower Delaware River Valley. In the decade after 1664,
as a result of the Second and Third Anglo-Dutch Wars, the colony traded hands several times, finally
returning to English control under the terms of the Treaty of Westminster in 1674. By the time of the first
English census in 1671, what would become Philadelphia was predominantly occupied by dispersed
Swedish and Finnish swidden farmers living in simple log homes (with the exception of the area around
Passyunk [southwest Philadelphia], which was settled predominantly by the English). Early settlers grew
rye, wheat, Indian corn, and barley and raised cattle, hogs, sheep, and horses. English newcomers
commented favorably on the quality of the linen, cider, and butter local residents produced, as well as the
availability of wild and domesticated fowl, venison, bear, and fish (Craig 2001, Myers 1912, 251–253,
Tvengsberg 1995, 283–286).
By 1681, when Charles II granted William Penn land in America to establish an “ample colony,” the lower
Delaware Valley was occupied by several thousand Lenape Indians scattered along the Delaware River
and its tributaries—along with about 2,000 Europeans, the descendants of several hundred Swedes and
Finns that had settled parts of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware and small groups of Dutch and
English colonists that began settling in the Delaware Valley at midcentury. In all, about 50 European families
occupied the territory that would become modern Philadelphia. Beginning in 1681, they were joined by
hundreds of English, Irish, and Welsh Quakers actively recruited to Penn’s “holy experiment,” vastly
increasing the European presence in the lower Delaware Valley and rather quickly overwhelming older
Swedish and Finnish communities. Penn, a member of George Fox’s Society of Friends, intended his
plantation to be “a peaceful home for the persecuted members of the Society of Friends” and an “asylum
for the good and oppressed of every nation” (Dunn and Dunn 1982, 3–4, Scharf and Westcott 1884, 82–
83).
Drawn by Penn’s active promotion of the new colony, his comparatively democratic Frame of Government
(1681), Charter of Liberties (1683), and Charter of Privileges (1701), and his liberal policies regarding the
free practice of religion, “yeomen, artisans, shopkeepers, and well-to-do merchants” began flocking to
Philadelphia in the fall of 1681. Many waited for their properties to be surveyed in camps and caves along
the Delaware River, in tents, or in Swedish-style log cabins. By 1700, Pennsylvania’s European population
reached nearly 18,000, of which a little more than two-thirds were English, one-fifth were Welsh or Irish,
and one-twentieth were German or Dutch. Many of the remaining settlers, perhaps 1,200–1,300, were of
old Swedish or Finnish ancestry (Carlsson 1995, 176–181, Craig 2001, Lemon 1987, 122, Scharf and
Westcott 1884, 96, Watson 1850, 171–172m, Zabel 2012, 23).
Philadelphia’s population had reached 20,000 by 1775. Immigration increased throughout the eighteenth
century, creating cramped conditions and the need for more housing. By 1783, the districts of Southwark
and Northern Liberties alone had a population of 39,000 (Nash and Smith 1975, 366). Temporary dwellings
were built along the riverfront to accommodate the exploding population. The city’s unhealthy conditions
led to the Yellow Fever Epidemic of 1762. Two other epidemics followed: a severe one in the summer of
1793, and another moderate outbreak in the years 1794–1798 (Miller 1982).
The towns bordering the Delaware River on the outskirts of Philadelphia were magnets for industries such
as fishing and shipbuilding. At the beginning of the nineteenth century, Philadelphia was poised to become
one of the world’s largest manufacturing centers. Investment capital poured in, making Philadelphia a center
for chemicals, textiles, glass, ships, and iron-related products (Cotter, Roberts and Parrington 1993, 57).
Other smaller industries included cigar making, breweries, leather works, and furniture making. A diverse
manufacturing base helped Philadelphia weather the financial panics of the nineteenth century.
Philadelphia’s early focus on shipping gave way to turnpikes, canals, and railroads. In the 1830s, anthracite
coal transformed the city and surrounding areas into a highly industrialized manufacturing region and paved

3.5
the way for the development of the nation’s railroads. In 1854, the districts and communities in the portion
of Philadelphia County surrounding the original core of the city were consolidated under the municipal
government of the City of Philadelphia (Wainwright 1952, 276).
Waves of immigrants poured into Philadelphia in search of manufacturing jobs. By 1860, 30% of the city’s
inhabitants were foreign-born. Crowded, unsanitary conditions spread the rate of disease. Outbreaks of
cholera, malaria, typhoid, and tuberculosis killed thousands before the city modernized their sewage and
water systems in the first decade of the twentieth century. Manufacturing and commercial uses became the
predominant aspects of the city in the 1920s, as the more affluent residents migrated to the suburbs. Left
behind were the working-class ethnic enclaves, such as Italians in South Philadelphia and Polish/Eastern
European families in North Philadelphia. With the departure of its affluent residents, many of the
neighborhoods within Philadelphia fell into economic decline, a condition that was further exacerbated by
the steady erosion of its manufacturing base, which has plagued Philadelphia since the end of World War
II. The city experienced a turnaround when the nation’s bicentennial celebration in the 1970s touched off a
commitment to historic preservation and heritage tourism.
Site-Specific Context
The development of the Philadelphia waterfront within the project area has been the subject of several
previous studies that have provided a rich wealth of property background research about the development
of the lot over time. These previous research efforts conducted by Carmen Weber (1987) and John Milner
Associates, Inc. (2012) involved substantial deed research and historic map analysis, and the creation of a
site-development chronology (Weber and Yamin 1988/2006, Mancl, Balicki and Yamin 2013). The following
section builds upon this deed research, which is summarized and expanded upon in Appendix B.
Early Waterfront Development and Shipbuilding

Settlement within the project area began in the late seventeenth century, commensurate with William
Penn’s initial layout of the city of Philadelphia. At this time, however, the project area sat just to the north of
the city proper, Vine Street at that time being the city’s northern limit. The original ground lots patented
within the project area extended from Front Street (the Great Road) to the Delaware River, an average
distance of 255 feet. At this time, there was no formal Water Street, only an informal 30-foot-wide cartway
that ran along the riverbank. As part of their original patent, the landowners were often encouraged if not
required to establish wharves along their water lots.
By the early 1680s, shipwright James West had begun building vessels within the project area. James West
occupied a 100-foot-wide lot just north of Vine Street and by 1690 had purchased the Penny Pot Tavern,
which he also operated (Weber and Yamin 1988/2006, 2). To the north of James West, a ropemaker name
William Rakeshaw set up his operation. These two men were the first to establish themselves in the
shipbuilding trade within the project area. While the southern portion of the project area was developing a
nascent shipbuilding industry, the area in the northern portion of the lot, north of the Wood Street steps,
was occupied by a mix of tailors (John Jennett), yeomen (Francis Rawle), and surgeons (John Goodson).
The great success of the West Shipyard soon drew other shipwright and maritime tradesmen to the vicinity,
and so by the 1720s, most of the original lots within the project area were now engaged in the shipbuilding
trade. Jacob Casdorf, shipwright (1717–1759), took ownership of the Goodson lot south of Callowhill, the
Langston and Rawle lots came under the control of the Lynn shipbuilding family in 1717, and the Porteus
and Colley lots came under the control of Joseph Fox, also a shipwright. In the south, William Rakestraw
had been replaced by shipwright Michael Hewling; south along Vine, the West Shipyard continued to
operate under James West’s son Charles West. The final holdout was the Jennett lot, which was not
purchased by a shipwright until 1737, when it came under the operation of Richard Allen, who was followed
in succession by James Parrock and William Taylor, all of whom pursued the trade.
During this period, many of the shipwrights in this area became well respected and renowned for their trade.
The accounts of merchant John Reynell reveal his esteem for shipwright Charles West, who he repeatedly
engaged to construct vessels. In 1740, Reynell employed Charles West to construct the Mary, which West
subsequently launched from his shipyard in 1741 (Middlebrook 1934, 128-129). Reynell acted as a go-

3.6
between for a contract on another ship—the Tetsworth, for his friend Elias Bland, a London-based
merchant—in which Bland specifically requests Charles West. Charles was seemingly occupied, as the
order for the vessel was eventually filled by Charles’s son, James West, with the Tetsworth being launched
around 1748 (Gillingham 1932, 179-180). Richard Deeble had John Reynell engage Michael Hulings (the
Wests’ northern neighbor) to build for him the ship John and Anna in 1733–1734 (Gillingham 1932, 166-
167). In the 1740s, others—like Philadelphia merchant William Till—contracted shipwrights like John
Parrock to build vessels for their London contacts (Lawrence Williams). While John Parrock (likely the son
of James Parrock, neighbor to the Hulings and Wests) may not have been the first choice of Till, he
describes him as an “esteemed good builder” and states he is available while C. West or Hulings are
otherwise engaged (Farley 2014). This seems to suggest that Philadelphia shipwrights were doing a
booming business and merchants were happy to find a competent builder to build them a vessel when the
premiere shipwrights were busy. It seems therefore that during the first half of the eighteenth century, the
project area was home to a series of high-end shipwrights who were busy crafting the vessels upon which
Philadelphia and the Atlantic World conducted its maritime trade (see Appendix B.).
While the original land patents and deed records seem to emphasize the desire to build wharfage, most
occupants in the shipbuilding community did not seem to take the practice to heart in the second quarter of
the eighteenth century. Views of the riverbank recorded in 1720 show only one wharf, at the West Shipyard
(Cooper 1720). A second view from 1754 shows only two wharves in the project area. In the 1754 view, the
southern wharf is owned by shipwright Charles West, son of shipwright James West; the other wharf, on
the former Rakestraw lot to the north, was occupied by shipwright Michael Hulings. The 1754 view shows
that the northern portion of the project area was still largely undeveloped riverbank by this point in time.
The lack of wharves did not seem to prevent the construction of vessels, however, as this same image
shows a number of vessels being constructed directly on the marshy riverbank across most of the northern
half of the current project area (Figure 3.2). Given the vernacular shipbuilding methods of the day and the
comparably small size of the vessels, shipwrights in the late seventeenth century and early eighteenth
century did not require much more than a gently sloped portion of the riverbank near slow deep water,
offering protection from storms in order to build and launch a vessel (Dworsky 2011, 15, Ford 2007).
Surveying these images along the full length of the Delaware riverbank, it appears that most ships shown
under construction were being built on largely unaltered riverbank, with only a few in shipways, suggesting
that slipways and more established infrastructure were the exceptions, not the rule for shipbuilding at this
time (Dworsky 2011, Goldberg 1976). Eight years later, by the time the next detailed map of the city was
drafted, West and Hewlings were still the only shipwrights within the project area to improve or wharf out
their water lots (Scull, Clarkson and Biddle 1762). By 1762, a third wharf had been built at the northern end
of the project area, this one owned and operated by Samuel Shoemaker, a Quaker merchant. Between the
Hewlings and Shoemaker wharves—where Joseph Lynn and sons, Richard Allen, William Taylor, James
Parrock, and Joseph Fox were all engaged in shipbuilding—the area was still depicted as natural riverbank
(Figure 3.3).

3.7
Figure 3.1. A vessel under construction at the West Shipyard (right edge of frame) with the Penny Pot house (#24)
behind. Extract from The South East Prospect of the City of Philadelphia by Peter Cooper, circa 1718 (Cooper 1720).
Figure 3.2. A view of the West Shipyard wharf and shipbuilding within the project area, circa 1754. Extract from An
East Prospect of the City of Philadelphia by George Heap and engraved by Thomas Jeffreys (Heap, Scull and Jefferys
1754).

3.8
Figure 3.3. Overlay of the 1762 map of Philadelphia (Scull, Clarkson and Biddle 1762)

3.9
Early Mercantile Period

By the mid-eighteenth century, the character and landscape of the project area were beginning to evolve.
Samuel Shoemaker had established a mercantile wharf on the northern edge of the project area in 1759
and had been quite successful (Deeds 1759). As the city grew and expanded, the waterfront was becoming
more valuable and shipbuilding seems to have begun to relocate farther norther in Northern Liberties and
Kensington. After three generations of shipbuilding on the West lot, the practice fell by the wayside shortly
after the death of Charles West Sr. in 1761. While his son James, also a shipwright, persisted for a bit after
his father’s passing, he died shortly thereafter in 1762 (J. West 1761). By the time of his brother James’s
death in 1762, Charles West Jr. had begun to establish himself as a merchant on the southernmost portion
of his family’s land along Vine Street. He was joined shortly thereafter by his nephew, William West, son of
the late James, who also transitioned to mercantile business on the northern portion of the family’s
waterfront lot, which had been given to him via his father. These lots had been divided by a 16-foot alley
per the will of Charles West Sr. in 1761 (C. West 1761).
As the second half of the eighteenth century progressed, the number of former shipyards being taken over
by merchants drastically increased. Shipwright Christopher Smith remained in operation on the Rawle lot
between 1777 and 1784 before selling the land to a merchant, Isaac Hazlehurst (Deeds 1784). By 1791,
the land and shipyard formerly of Michael Hulings passed to his son-in-law merchant/sheriff Joseph
Cowperthwaite, and the lands of William Taylor, shipwright, were passed to his son Bankson Taylor and his
business partner Jacob Clements, both merchants (Deeds 1791, Deeds 1791). By the mid-1790s, the
project area was no longer the domain of shipwrights, but was now the realm of merchants like Thomas
Britton, William Massey, John Harrison, George Knorr, Isaac Hazlehurst, Jacob Clements, Joseph
Cowperthwaite, William West, and Charles West (Hills 1796).
With the transition to a mercantile economy within the lot came a substantial physical transformation in the
landscape. Wharves were built rapidly, and by 1794, nearly all the project area had been wharfed out past
the point of modern-day Columbus Boulevard (Figure 3.4). By this point, the waterfront was no longer within
the current project area, as the whole area had been wharfed out and mercantile structures built upon the
new land. Construction of warehouses, stores, and dwellings also seemingly increased around this time
and into the early nineteenth century, and shipyards disappeared (Figure 3.5). By the early nineteenth
century, the route of Water Street had been formally established, as the riverbank had moved so far east
of Front that it no longer served its intended purpose. The Water Street routeway was established at a 40-
foot width in 1795 (Brooke, Keen and Schneider 1795). Maps from this time period in the early nineteenth
century show a landscape characterized by warehouses divided by a series of alleys, all fronting on Water
Street. The circa-1800 map Adam Ritter presented in Philadelphia and Her Merchants suggests that by the
turn of the nineteenth century, much of the land south of Wood Street was owned and operated by the
Wests and their associates, who were principally engaged in the salt trade. In the north, lumberyards
dominated, and in between were bakeries, producing ships bread and biscuit. In the Goodson lot, a tavern
and a series of dwellings had been erected (Figure 3.6). This configuration of warehouses, stores, and
dwellings separated by a network of alleys seems to have persisted until just about the mid-nineteenth
century, with the economy of the area remaining focused on ship provisioning, shipping, and lumber trade
(Figure 3.7; Figure 3.8).

3.10
Figure 3.4. Overlay of map To Thomas Mifflin, governor and commander in chief of the state of Pennsylvania, this plan
of the city and suburbs of Philadelphia is respectfully inscribed by the editor, 1794 (Folie and Allardice 1794)
Figure 3.5. Overlay of map This plan of the city of Philadelphia and its environs…, circa 1796 (Hills 1796)

3.11
Figure 3.6. Overlay of map Wharves-Vine to Callowhill, circa 1800, mapmaker unknown, reprinted in Philadelphia and
Her Merchants (Ritter 1860)
Figure 3.7. Overlay of map Plan of the city of Philadelphia and adjoining districts: shewing the existing and contemplated
improvements, circa 1830 (Tanner 1837)

3.12
Figure 3.8. Overly of map Map of the City of Philadelphia together with all the surrounding Districts (Sidney 1849)
The Great Conflagration of 1850

On July 9, 1850, workers were lowering molasses into the basement of a warehouse located at 139 Water
Street, between Vine and Race Streets. Friction from the hoisting machine caused a fire, igniting a store of
straw in the warehouse (Latest Particulars of the Fire 1850). This warehouse, belonging to merchants John
Brock & Co. and Gordon & Berger & Co., began to burn and the alarm was raised. Unfortunately, as the
fire burned down, it ignited the stores of saltpeter on the first floor of John Brock’s warehouse, causing a
massive explosion that sent flaming debris several blocks in all directions, catching a substantial portion of
the northern part of the city and much of Northern Liberties alight. The resultant fire, which eventually
became known as the Great Conflagration, killed upwards of 17 people and consumed a total of 367 houses
and businesses. Properties as far west as Fourth Street, as far south as Race Street, and north past
Callowhill were all destroyed, and debris from the explosion was found as far west as Broad Street (Latest
Particulars of the Fire 1850). The damage from this fire totaled over 1.5 million dollars in 1850, and nearly
bankrupted most insurance companies in the city. A survey of the Mutual Assurance records at the Historical
Society of Pennsylvania reveals that all the houses on Front and Water Street opposite the current project
area were listed as total losses circa 1850 as a result of this fire. A newspaper account, dated July 11, 1850,
states that on the east side of Water Street, between Callowhill and Vine (the boundaries of the current
Vine Street parking lot), 8–10 buildings were destroyed (Latest Particulars of the Fire 1850). Examination
of the insurance files of the Philadelphia Contributorship confirm that much of the block was listed as a total
loss in 1850 and then was subsequently rebuilt during the following two years (Knight 1852, Knight 1851,
Knight 1851).

3.13
Figure 3.9. A print by Charles Rosenberg showing the explosion that started the Great Conflagration (Rosenberg 1850)
Post-Great Conflagration Waterfront Redevelopment Period

Following the Great Conflagration in 1850, the project area and the surrounding block were subsequently
rebuilt (Knight 1852, Knight 1851, Knight 1851). City planners took advantage of this “clean slate” and
extended the route of Delaware Avenue north of Vine Street, its previous terminus, all the way into the heart
of Northern Liberties. Joseph H. Siddall drafted plans for the new Delaware Avenue just four months after
the fire (Siddall 1850). By 1851, many of the businesses along Water Street had been rebuilt in new and
larger structures, which fronted on the newly established Delaware Avenue, not just Water Street. This new
configuration of the block is well documented by the creation of the 1858–1859 Hexamer map series
(Hexamer & Locher 1859). These newly created structures depicted on Plate 43 of the Hexamer map series
show that the new buildings spanned the entire width of the newly created block. Most of the new buildings
in the southern half of the block were rebuilt at least four stories tall, while the northern portion of the lot
stayed largely empty apart from the northern edge along Callowhill Street (Figure 3.11). Despite the new
built environment, the merchants still tended to dominate the landscape of the block, with the West family
and their kinsman the Bacon family continuing to sell goods and salt on the southern edge of the block
along Vine Street. In the middle of the block, several additional large mercantile buildings were erected and
similarly served principal functions as mercantile warehouses. The northern part of the block continued to
be dominated by lumber and coal yards as it had prior to the fire, and the tavern and house along Callowhill
Street were also rebuilt. The usage of the northern portion of the block seems to have remained static
throughout the third quarter of the nineteenth century, with the lumberyard of Edward B. McClees occupying
the area just to the north of Wood Street alley, and the Joseph B. Bloodgood coal yard occupying the
remaining land to the north between the lumberyard and the tavern and domestic buildings along Callowhill.
South of Wood Street, some structural change did take place. As shown in Figure 3.12, by the mid-1870s,

3.14
the area between the rebuilt warehouses near Vine Street and those to the north along Wood Street had
been infilled with a large market building owned by Edward Browning (Hopkins 1875, Deeds 1873). This
structure, the Delaware Avenue Market, persisted until the block was razed at the end of the century.
Figure 3.10. Overlay of map Plan of Delaware Avenue from Vine St. to Cohocksink Creek in the District of the Northern
Liberties, September 27, 1850 (Siddall 1850).

3.15
Figure 3.11. Overlay of map “11th Ward – Plate 43” from the Hexamer and Locher Maps of the City of Philadelphia, Volume 4
(Hexamer & Locher 1859).
Figure 3.12. Overlay of “Plate I” from City Atlas of Philadelphia, Vol. 6, Wards 2 through 20, 29 and 31, circa 1875 (Hopkins
1875).

3.16
Late Nineteenth-Century
During the late nineteenth century, the southern portion of the block, south of Wood Street, remained
physically unaltered from its 1870s configuration. However, by the 1890s, the former Edward B. McClees
lumberyard had been replaced with a network of small buildings and dwellings—six fronting on Water
Street, six on Delaware Avenue. In between these new dwellings was a fruit warehouse erected sometime
between 1875 and 1885 (Hopkins 1875, Baist 1885). The portion of the lot fronting on Callowhill Street
remained largely consistent; however, the northeast corner of the block at the intersection of Delaware
Avenue and Callowhill had seen a new structure erected. The coal yard, between the new houses and the
mid-century dwellings along Callowhill Street, remained in operation, but had by 1895 seen a substantial
number of additional sheds and structures built within its footprint. While the southern portion of the block
seemed to remain fully commercial in function, the northern portion had begun to lean sharply toward
domestic and small-scale commercial usage.
Figure 3.13. Overlay of map “Plan 20” from Baist's Property Atlas of the City and County of Philadelphia, Penna, complete
in one volume, 1895) (Baist 1885).
Modern Period
At the close of the nineteenth century, the Pennsylvania Railroad Company began buying up the land
between Vine and Callowhill Streets and between Water Street and Delaware Avenue in order to build a
railyard. The company began purchasing properties on the block in 1892. Much of the land was initially
acquired by a land agent, Henry M. DuBois, before being transferred to the Pennsylvania Railroad
Company later that same year. By the dawn of the twentieth century, the railroad had razed the entire block
and erected in its place a series of rail sidings that connected to the tracks already extant along the route
of Delaware Avenue (Figure 3.14). Historic photographs show that the stone retaining wall that lines the
western edge of the Vine Street lot was extant during the usage of the railyard, and the block had been
graded flat to near its current level. The area featured two parallel rail sidings, and the yard itself was paved
in cut stone block (Photo 3.1). In 1969, the Hertz Rent-a-Car company purchased the Vine Street lot and
turned it into a car rental lot and maintenance facility. Hertz erected several structures, including a large
maintenance garage building in the southern portion of the lot, while the remaining area was used for

3.17
parking. In the late twentieth century, Hertz sold the lot to the DRWC, who has retained ownership since
that time. Under the ownership of the DRWC, the maintenance buildings were torn down and subsurface
tanks removed, and the entire lot was turned into a paid parking lot.
Figure 3.14. Overlay of map “Sheet 209” from Insurance maps of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Vol.3, 1916 (Sanborn Map
Company 1916).
Photo 3.1. A view looking southwest at the Vine Street lot from the southwest corner of Delaware Avenue and Callowhill
(left). A view of Delaware Avenue facing north, showing its relationship to the railyard and sidewalk (right). (Philadelphia
Department of Records Public Works 43313-14-33296 and Public Works 43313-14-33290).

3.18
Previous Archaeological Research

The Vine Street lot has been the subject of two previous archaeological investigations. The first such
investigation was conducted by the Philadelphia Historical Commission in 1987, under the direction of City
Archaeologist Carmen Weber, and the second by John Milner Associates on behalf of the DRWC in 2012
(Weber and Yamin 1988/2006, John Milner Associates, Inc. 2013). The 1987 excavations focused on the
northern portion of the Vine Street lot and the 2012 excavations on the southern portion.
Figure 3.15. A map of the Vine Street lot showing the locations of previous surveys and key features.

3.19
1987 Excavations
Carmen Weber’s excavations of the Hertz lot in 1987
focused principally on the portion of the lot north of the
Wood Street steps (Figure 3.15). Weber’s excavations
were successful in locating substantive evidence of
eighteenth- and nineteenth-century wharves, related to
the early expansion of the waterfront. Weber
documented the prevalent use of timber crib
construction infilled with gravel, sand, and silt during
both the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, and
documented the use of a variety of timber joinery
techniques in crib construction (Weber and Yamin
1988/2006). While crib construction was the most
pervasive, Weber found that raft-type wharf
construction in combination with dredge spoil was also
used to create new land. Weber noted that while
evidence of the eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-
century wharf structures appeared to be well
preserved, material from the later use of the site was
largely absent, apart from some ephemeral structural
remains (Weber and Yamin 1988/2006).
The most notable find was the discovery of a well-

preserved slipway—used for hauling ships out of the
water for repair or refit. About 83 feet of this structure
was uncovered, showing two parallel wooden rails set
8–9 feet apart, upon which a cradle would have been
set. Small ships or schooners were then able to sail Photo 3.2. A view of the fully excavated shipway
found during the 1987 excavations (Weber and Yamin
into the cradle from the river and, once secured, the
ship and cradle could then be hoisted up the sloped 1988/2006)
rails to drier land, where it could be worked on (Weber
and Yamin 1988/2006, 18-19, 31). Weber’s report suggests that this shipway likely dates to the early
nineteenth century under the occupation of Thomas Leiper, as the 1811 Paxton map shows a possible
structure in the approximate location around that time (Paxton 1811).
2012 Excavations
The second archaeological excavation of the Vine Street lot occurred in 2012 and focused on the southern
portion of the lot, principally the land the West family formerly occupied (Figure 3.15). John Milner
Associates undertook this excavation on behalf of the DRWC.
The 2012 excavations consisted of the excavation of three test trenches. The only one of the three trenches
to be excavated north of Wood Street, Trench 1, was placed perpendicular to the southern trenches
excavated by Weber in 1987; it was hoped this trench would produce further evidence of the bulkhead in
this location. While successful in documenting the fill sequence of the area, Trench 1 did not produce any
further evidence of a wharf structure.
Trench 2 was a 72-foot-long trench placed along the western edge of the parking lot and spanned most of
the length of the original West lot. This trench revealed several foundation walls made of stone and brick
(Features 1, 2, 3, 4), as well as some floor joists (Feature 5) (John Milner Associates, Inc. 2013, 26-28).
These foundation walls were considered to be representative of a late-nineteenth-century apartment block
built on the site and its internal divisions and basement floor. Some of these walls were found to be sitting
upon wider and deeper wall structures, which were interpreted as the reused remnants of an earlier
nineteenth-century building foundations (John Milner Associates, Inc. 2013, 28). The excavation of builder’s
trenches associated with these deeper walls, such as those excavated in Test Unit 2, produced late-
eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century material, suggesting a construction date for these earlier

3.20
structures. Underlying these foundations, at a depth of

6 feet below ground surface (BGS), archaeologists
found a series of logs laid parallel to one another and
perpendicular to the riverbank (John Milner Associates,
Inc. 2013, 31). These logs were interpreted as
representing part of the earlier phase of wharfing out of
the riverbank, a process accomplished using a grillage
wharf system. This grillage wharf system used rafts of
overlapping logs laid at right angles and then filled with
stone and sediment in order to build out the land into
the river. One full layer of this grillage was observed
and documented, and another layer of perpendicular
logs viewed briefly before water inundated and
obscured the feature (John Milner Associates, Inc.
2013, 31). These logs showed evidence of hewing or Photo 3.3. Logs forming part of a grillage wharf
joinery, but the matrix in which they appeared was full (Feature 6) located 6 feet below the surface of the
of woodworking debris. This surface was therefore parking lot (John Milner Associates, Inc. 2013, 32).
interpreted as being part of an early pier or wharf upon
which ships were built and other waterfront carpentry activities took place (John Milner Associates, Inc.
2013). This Feature 6 grillage wharf deposit was dated to the first quarter of the eighteenth century through
diagnostic artifacts.
The last trench John Milner Associates excavated, Trench 3, was situated along the southern edge of the
parking lot just above Vine Street. Within this trench, much of the eastern portion was determined to have
been disturbed by later action related to the Hertz parking lot (John Milner Associates, Inc. 2013, 36). In the
western portion, however, archaeologists identified a stone wall (Feature 9) that ran north to south. This
wall was cut into wharf fill sediments containing late-seventeenth- and eighteenth-century artifacts. At a
depth of 5 feet, archaeologists also encountered a series of large flagstones (Feature 10) running
perpendicular to the wall along the northern edge of the trench. While the soils beneath the Feature 9 wall
were interpreted as being related to early-eighteenth- and nineteenth-century wharf construction, the wall
itself was attributed to the late-nineteenth-century apartment block (John Milner Associates, Inc. 2013, 36).

3.21
4. Methodology
The scope of the current due diligence effort was limited to the excavation of five test trenches across the
Vine Street lot placed to sample locations not previously investigated during the preceding 1987 and 2012
excavations (Figure 4.1). The goal of the survey was to test in areas of proposed impact, but also to assess
the degree of disturbance caused by the construction of the Hertz facility in the twentieth century. In addition
to documenting intact archaeology, this testing effort sought to assess and identify areas of disturbance
where archaeological deposits do not survive. The project APE comprises approximately 65,293 square
feet of parking lot. The current testing effort sampled approximately 1,265 square feet of the lot, bringing
the total square footage from all archaeology efforts to 7,414 square feet, or 11.35% of the total APE.
Research Design
Prior to excavation, the location of the five planned test trenches were plotted in ArcGIS, allowing for their
placement to maximize informational potential (Figure 4.1). The trench locations were selected to address
specific project goals and research questions, as well as to provide data on areas of the Vine Street lot not
sampled during previous research efforts. Prior to excavation, maps showing these trench locations were
submitted for approval to the Philadelphia Historical Commission (PHC), along with a description of the
rationale for their placement.
The position of Trench 1 and Trench 2 would allow for AECOM to further examine the northwestern edge
of the Vine Street lot, but in an area farther to the west than Carmen Weber sampled in 1987. This was
done because previous research had indicated that the western edge of the lot held the greatest portion for
deposits related to the earliest phase of historic occupation, as it was likely the only place where natural
riverbank was apt to be encountered. Trench 1 was 5 feet in width and 25 feet in length, running southeast
to northeast at an angle of about 30° relative to Water Street. This trench was positioned to straddle the
property line between the Rawle and Goodson lots, to capture any evidence of wharf-related structures
along the edge of the properties, and to assess the potential deposits and disturbance related to the late-
nineteenth-century domestic/commercial occupations in the northwest corner of the Vine Street lot.
Trench 2 was 5 feet in width and 50 feet in length and was positioned to run parallel to Water Street and
perpendicular to the former route of Wood Street, spanning the footprint of the former Colley, Porteus, and
Jennett lots. The principal goal of this trench was to determine if any evidence of the former Wood Street
alleyway or additional stairway survives. This trench also sought to determine the potential for survival of
structural features flanking the route of the historic routeway from the eighteenth- and nineteenth-century
occupations.
Trench 3 was a 5-x-50-foot trench within the footprint of the original Rakestraw lot. It was oriented northeast
to southwest, running at a 45° angle relative to Water Street, and was placed to assess the degree of
disturbance caused by the installation and subsequent removal of a fuel tank installed during the mid-
twentieth-century Hertz occupation. The position of this trench in the eastern portion of the former
Rakestraw lot was located in an area that a 1762 map indicates was one of the first areas to be built out
into the river during the shipbuilding period (Scull, Clarkson and Biddle 1762). In addition to determining
the scale of possible disturbance, it was hoped that excavations in this trench would provide evidence of
early wharf construction related to the shipbuilding period.
Trenches 4 and 5 were placed to investigate the degree of disturbance the construction of the Hertz
maintenance facility in the mid-twentieth century caused to the underlying archaeology. Trench 4 was
placed in the eastern portion of the lot and was planned as a 5-x-50-foot trench. This trench was located to
look for evidence of wharf bulkheads related to the early building out of the wharves in the area of the West
and Hewling’s shipyard, as depicted on the 1762 map (Scull, Clarkson and Biddle 1762).
Trench 5, like Trench 4, was placed in the eastern portion of the Vine Street lot, beneath the foundation of
the mid-twentieth-century Hertz maintenance facility building. This trench location was selected to

4.1
investigate the former West family lot and determine if evidence of their shipbuilding activities and/or
wharves had survived despite the potential disturbance caused by the construction of the late-nineteenth-
century market building and the subsequent Hertz facility. This area was also the location of several
historically indicated mercantile stores and warehouses, separated by small alleyways, as indicated by
historic maps and deeds (Ritter 1860, 34, Tanner 1837, Hills 1796).
Excavation Methodology
Prior to excavation, trench locations were marked out with spray paint and then the pavement along the
marked area was cut with a road saw. The asphalt was subsequently removed using a mechanical
excavator and material was stored separately for off-site disposal. Where necessary, reinforced concrete
was also cut in a similar manner and removed for off-site disposal. Mechanical excavation was performed
by a machine using a flat-bladed bucket, so that as fill strata were removed in incremental layers, the
sediments were cut smoothly, making the presence of contrasting fill sediments potentially indicative of
cultural features more readily identifiable. The incremental mechanical removal of historic fill sediment was
monitored by an RPA-certified archaeologist who meets the Secretary of the Interior standards. At the depth
at which historic features were first encountered, mechanical excavation was terminated, and features were
photo-documented, measured, and mapped. Profile drawings of at least one wall of the trench were
generated for each trench. In areas of interest where cultural features were present, judgmentally placed
test units were manually excavated in the floor of the trench, providing a controlled sample of potentially
diagnostic strata or features. Once all features had been explored at a certain depth, the mechanical
excavation of the trench was resumed. If additional cultural features were encountered, the aforementioned
documentation and hand-excavation process was repeated, as necessary. Throughout the mechanical
excavation process, additional plan view and profile drawings were generated, as necessary, to document
the full extent of the trench stratigraphy. Mechanical excavation continued in each trench until sterile
sentiment was encountered or groundwater inundation prevented further excavation. Where possible,
historic fill deposits, whether mechanically excavated or excavated by hand, were examined for cultural
material that might prove diagnostic. Sediment was only consistently screened when it was hand-excavated
from test units in a controlled manner. Samples taken from other deposits were recovered by hand based
on field observation, but were not collected in a systematic manner.

4.2
Figure 4.1. A map of the Vine Street lot showing the placement of the current trenches and test units relative to
previous excavations.

4.3
Artifact Processing and Analysis

Artifacts were processed in accordance with the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission (PHMC)
curation guidelines, as revised in 2006. All artifact material received catalog numbers, serving as a
reference throughout processing and analysis. Items assigned a point provenience in the field will retain
the field catalog number assigned during the excavation but will receive a final catalog number as well.
All artifacts recovered during due diligence archaeological testing were appropriately washed or dry-
brushed and analyzed at AECOM’s laboratory in Burlington, New Jersey. Analysis focused on using
recovered artifacts to date the contexts from which they were recovered. This effort was made to enable
the creation of a general timeline for the construction of the wharves and the building sequences observed
during excavation. The analysis and dating of cultural deposits relied on two techniques: terminus post
quem and percent contribution, both of which were used to establish an estimated date range.
Terminus Post Quem

Terminus post quem (TPQ), which translates to the “date after which,” is a dating technique used to
determine the earliest possible date for a given provenience based on the most recently produced artifact
within it. If the deposit has not been subject to subsequent disturbances, it can only have been created after
that object was first produced.
Percent Contribution
Percent contribution is a refinement of Stanley South’s (1977) original mean ceramic date calculations. It is
useful in understanding occupation peaks across sites because it shows a range rather than a single date.
The percent contribution indicates the probability of a randomly selected sherd from a particular
provenience being manufactured in a given year. The method used to create this chart is found in Bartovics
(1982). The formula used is:
P = S/(N*D)
Where:
P probability contribution for one year

N total number of datable sherds in the provenience
S number of sherds of the ware type
D range of manufacture in years
P is determined for each ware type with a unique date range (for example, 1744–1775 for scratch-blue
decorated white salt-glazed stoneware). The value is then entered into each year of manufacture for that
ware type. Each year’s cumulative probability is determined by adding all the values of P for each ware
type manufactured in that year. This cumulative percent value is then graphed for the range of years.
For example, a 10-sherd collection dataset (as shown in Table 4.1) would yield the percent-contribution
chart Table 4.1, which represents the likelihood that any artifact in the collection was deposited in a given
year. While the overall date range of the assemblage spans the years 1794–1840, the peak probability
occurs between 1820 and 1830, suggesting that this is the most likely depositional date range for the
assemblage.

4.4
Table 4.1. Example of Percent Contribution (only five years are shown as an example)
Begin End Range Percent

Ware Total (S) 1797 1798 1799 1800 1801
Date Date (D) (P)
Pearlware, Plain 3 1794 1830 36 0.8333% 0.8333% 0.8333% 0.8333% 0.8333% 0.8333%
Pearlware, Painted 4 1800 1830 30 1.3333% 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000% 1.3333% 1.3333%
Pearlware, Shell Edge 3 1820 1840 20 1.4286% 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000% 0.0000%
Grand Total 10 (N) 0.8333% 0.8333% 0.8333% 2.1666% 2.1666%
4.0%
3.8%
3.6%
3.4%
3.2%
3.0%
2.8%
2.6%
2.4%
% Contribution
2.2%
2.0%
1.8%
1.6%
1.4%
1.2%
1.0%
0.8%
0.6%
0.4%
0.2%
0.0%
1750
1760
1770
1780
1790
1800
1810
1820
1830
1840
1850
1860
1870
1880
1890
1900
Year
Figure 4.2. Percent contribution graphed.

4.5
5. Field Results
Trench 1
Trench 1 was a 5-x-25-foot-long trench mechanically excavated to a terminal depth of 8.9 feet below ground
surface (BGS). This trench produced a total of eight cultural features, including a foundation, several wharf-
related beams, a plank surface, and a post/piling. Initial mechanical excavation within Trench 1 was halted
at an approximate depth of 3.7 feet, removing late-nineteenth-century demolition debris, including
disarticulated large marble slabs, brick, and mortar, the remnants of the late-nineteenth-century building
that was demolished to establish the railyard in the early twentieth century. At a depth of 3.7 feet BGS, a
series of cultural features were encountered, and mechanical excavation was halted in favor of hand
excavation. A 5-x-5-foot test unit, Test Unit 1, was established at the northern edge of the trench to
investigate Feature 1/2, a stone foundation. To the south of Feature 1/2, Features 3, 4, and 5 were identified.
Feature 3 (Context 9) was a large deposit of decaying wood chips and chunks that were the byproduct of
hand-hewing and squaring timbers. The timbers in question may also be associated with Feature 4, a
planked walkway laid over the underlying silt soil as a stable surface. Feature 5 (Context 17) was just east
of Feature 4 and was a large hand-hewn wooden beam, possibly used as part of a bulkhead, as it is in
alignment with a timber bulkhead structure (Feature 6) identified to the east during the 1987 excavations
(Weber and Yamin 1988/2006, 26).
The southern portion of the trench was mechanically excavated to a deeper depth than the northern portion,
as this area did not include foundation features. The deeper stratigraphic profile in this southern half of the
trench revealed a series of thin bands of organic material, and woodworking debris (ax-cut timber chunks),
Contexts 70 and 91, separating thick layers of dark gray silty sands fills (Contexts 71, 89, & 90). Context
74, encountered at depth of 6.3 feet BGS, was a layer of scoured sand interpreted as representing the
former surface of the Delaware riverbank. In the eastern wall of the trench, an additional large hewn timber,
Feature 18/Context 88, was found cut into the Context 74 matrix. This timber was also potentially related
to early wharf construction, though no other timber structures were found in association. This timber was
capped by a thicker deposit of organic fill with inclusions of brick and wood, Context 89, which may
represent an early wharf fill. Underlying Context 74 were two deposits of coarse sands with large rounded
gravels (Contexts 92 and 93) that appear to be representative of the natural C horizon (Trenton Gravel
Formation) that form the bedrock geology of this area. In the eastern wall of the trench, a post or pile,
Feature 6/Context 87, was found protruding from the top of Context 74, encountered at a depth of 4 feet
BGS. Upon following this feature down in profile, it was found to extend into the underlying Context 92 and
93 Trenton Gravel deposits. This Feature 6/Context 87 post appeared roughly squared on its visible face
and continued down into the Trenton gravels for almost 3 feet of its 4-foot length. The presence of the
Feature 6 post/beam at the same level as Feature 88 and its association with the Context 74 riverbank
surface suggest that it was likely related to wharf or pier construction.

5.1
Figure 5.1. Trench 1, plan view and east wall profile.

5.2
Test Unit 1
Test Unit 1 was a 5-x-5-foot excavation unit in the northern portion of Trench 1. It was placed to examine
the relationship between the Feature 1/2 foundation and its interior and exterior fills: Context 6 (interior) and
Context 21 (exterior). Measurements for the unit were captured via a local datum located in the northwest
corner of the unit. Each context within the interior of Feature 1 was removed in stratigraphic fill layers rather
than arbitrary levels. Context 21, on the exterior of Feature 1, was not excavated beyond exposing the
wood and brick debris (Photo 5.2).
Context 6, the uppermost interior fill, was a

dark gray (2.5Y4/1) silty sand fill that was
largely sterile and was likely dredge spoil.
While it contained few artifacts, Context 6 did
contain a substantial deposit of disarticulated
schist stones clustered along the north wall of
the interior of Feature 1/2 (Photo 5.1). These
stones continued across the northern half of
the unit throughout Context 6, terminating at
the interface with the underlying Context 51.
Context 51 was a brown (10YR4/3) silty sand
mixed with a black (10YR2/1) organic silty
sandy loam, which was predominately found
under and around an overlying deposit of
disarticulated stones. Twenty-seven artifacts
were recovered from Context 51, including
unidentified refined earthenware (n=2), Photo 5.1. Test Unit 1 In-Progress Planview. Context 7, 21, and 6
creamware (n=3), white salt-glazed stoneware
(n=1), porcelain (n=1), slip glazed redware (n=2), redware (n=2), mouth-blown container glass (n=3), nails
(n=2), a pipe stem (n=1), shell (n=1), window glass (n=4), and faunal bone (n=5). The presence of
creamware establishes the TPQ of Context 51 as 1762. While the TPQ suggests that this deposit postdates
1762, the percent-contribution chart for the assemblage indicates a peak date between 1770 and 1780,
making that decade the most likely time period for the creation of Context 51 (Appendix C.).
Directly underlying Context 51 was Context 73, a dark gray (10YR4/1) fill deposit of sandy loam with brick
fragments and coal. Context 73 was similar in color and make-up to Context 21 on the exterior of Feature
1, but it lacked the pervasive inclusions of wood planks and was found about 1.95 feet deeper than Context
21. Context 73 also had no cultural material apart from the general inclusion of brick and coal. By contrast,
when Context 21 was excavated on the exterior of the foundation, it produced 17 artifacts, including burned
pearlware (n=2), pearlware (n=4), whiteware (n=1), colorless container glass (n=4), window glass (n=4),
and wood fragments (n=2). The percent contribution for Context 21 suggests a peak around 1820–1830,
and the TPQ for the deposit is 1815 based on the presence of a sherd of whiteware. If Context 21 and
Context 73 represent a singular deposit, the interior of the Feature 1 structure must have been open in
order for the same material as Context 21 to have ended up at a deeper depth. This would also suggest
that Context 51 and Context 6 were used as infill for grading, explaining why there was no builder’s trench
for Feature 1 evident in either Context 6 or Context 51.

5.3
Photo 5.2. Feature 1 profile. Context 7 and Context 8 overlying Context 51 (left); Test Unit 1 closing plan view. Feature 1
and 2 including Context 7, 8, 21, and 51 (right).
Context 73 overlaid Context 74, the natural parent material composed of heavily scoured beach-like sands,
with small to medium rounded pebbles and cobbles. Small remnants of wood joists, Context 85, were found
underlying Feature 1 and directly on top of Context 74. This Context 85 deposit was used to provide a level
surface for building Feature 1/2. The relationship between Context 85 and Context 74 suggested Feature
1 was built directly on the once exposed riverfront.
Feature 1 (Context 7)
Feature 1 was first identified in the north end of Trench 1, at approximately 3.7 feet BGS. Initially, Feature
1 only consisted of Context 7. Feature 2 was later combined with Feature 1. The feature consisted of two
mortared schist walls, Context 7 and Context 8, abutting at a 90° angle. Context 7 ran perpendicular to
Water Street, while Context 8 ran roughly parallel to Water Street.
Feature 1 was likely associated with a mid-eighteenth- to late-eighteenth-century wharf structure. The
feature sat directly adjacent and parallel to a large hand-hewn beam that was likely an interior support.
Feature 1 seems to turn at a 90° angle at the end of Context 8, forming another corner. Feature 1 then
continues into the east profile of the trench. It can be assumed that Feature 1 was part of a large squared
feature continuing eastward. The combined interior of Features 1 and 2 was excavated in Test Unit 1. There
were two sizeable packages of homogenous silty sand fills. Both fills could have been dredged from the
river after this stone structure was in use as a way of grading. Test Unit 1 encompassed nearly all of Feature
1.
Initially thought to be its own feature, Feature 2 was later combined with Feature 1. It was another mortared
schist wall running approximately parallel to modern-day Water Street. The walls met at a 90° angle, forming
a corner. As mentioned previously, Feature 1 and 2 were comprised of three coarse levels of stone and
mortar. During excavation, small fragments of wood were found just beneath the wall. These pieces of wood
could have been the remnants of wooden joists or footers used to support the stone wall as it sat on top of
natural C-horizon beach sands from the Delaware River. Test Unit 1 encompasses Feature 2.

5.4
Feature 3 was a deposit of decaying wood chips and
chunks that were the byproduct of hand hewing and
squaring timbers. The feature was found 3.7 feet BGS.
Most of the deposit comprised of 1- to 3-inch-thick cuts
of wood, measuring less than a foot in length. The ends
of wood chips showed a distinct level cut associated
with ax work. They were suspended in a black
(10YR2/1) loam matrix. This matrix also contained
many of the eighteenth-century artifacts recovered.
Feature 3 occupied much of the south half of the
trench. It directly abutted Feature 1. Samples of
polychrome pearlware suggest the feature was
possibly late-eighteenth century to early nineteenth Photo 5.3. Plan view photo of the Feature 3
century. matrix, showing the dark soil and wood chunks (bottom)
and the semi-articulated planking of Feature 4 (top).
Feature 4 was a collection of hand-hewn wooden
planks, seemingly a planked walkway related to a pier.
The beams of Feature 4 ran east to west. Context 17
was initially thought to be a part of Feature 4, but after
a closer look and more excavation, Context 17 was
determined to be a separate feature. Feature 4 sat
above a deposit of organic wood debris that likely
represented the former bank of the Delaware River. It
was hypothesized that Feature 4 was an ephemeral
pathway alongside a riverbank. Some planks existed
as fragmentary bits of wood, but were still likely
associated with more complete planks that make up
the walkway.
Photo 5.4. A view of the Feature 5 timber in

Feature 5 (Context 17) profile, showing its thickness and position relative to
Feature 5 was originally part of Feature 4, but upon the Feature 1/2 foundation.
further analysis, it was determined to be its own
feature. It was a large hand-hewn wooden beam along
the eastern wall of Trench 1. This beam was parallel
with Feature 18 and was approximately the same size.
Feature 5 could have been one of two large beams
making up the sides of a slipway. Feature 5 had the
same general orientation as Features 1 and 2. The 0.7-
foot-thick beam started at 3.55 feet BGS and extended
to a depth of 3.62 feet BGS. The uppermost section of
the beam was surrounded by wood chips and pulp,
possibly a byproduct from forming this beam. Previous
excavations performed by Carmen Weber (1987)
identified a timber bulkhead wall (Feature 6) in Trench
TT# 7 (Weber and Yamin 1988/2006). This timber
bulkhead wall, ascribed to the early nineteenth century,
occurs in the same orientation as the observed portion
of Feature 5, and was constructed of similar timber.
Given the orientation of Feature 5, it is likely that it Photo 5.5. Profile of the west wall of the north end
represents another section of the Feature 6 wharf of Trench 1, showing the Feature 6 post in profile.
bulkhead identified in 1987.

5.5

Feature 6 was a vertical square post about 4.6 feet BGS. It sat along the west profile of Trench 1, about 3
feet north of the southern end. The post extended into natural parent soils and Trenton Gravels.

Feature 17 was a builder’s trench alongside
two wooden beams/planks that ran parallel to
Feature 1, the stone wall at the northern end of
Trench 1. The builder’s trench was associated
with the plank directly to its east. The trench
was shallow and terminated at the base of the
adjacent hand-hewn timber to the east. The
trench stopped in line with the southwest
corner of Feature 1 and 2 stone walls. Two
mostly intact bricks were in the trench, possibly
to help hold the beam in place or as fill.

Feature 18 was a large wooden beam present
in the eastern wall of Trench 1 (Context 88). It Photo 5.6. Feature 17 bisected.
was approximately 5.8 feet BGS. The beam
sat on top of the first layer of natural soils, a
strong brown (7.5YR5/6) sandy soil rich in
pebbles and gravels. Above and alongside the
beam were bands of fine sand and silt,
indicative of rapid water flow from the river.
This beam was roughly perpendicular to

Feature 5. It was the same material, similar in
size and ran at the same angle, and roughly
had the same silty material above and
alongside. Feature 18 was likely a secondary
support beam to the Feature 5 wharf structure.
Photo 5.7. Feature 18 along the east profile. Feature 5 sat

slightly higher than Feature 18

5.6
Trench 2
Trench 2, a 5-x-50-foot test area, was excavated to a terminal depth of 8 feet below the existing parking lot
surface. This trench contained eight cultural features and multiple levels of historic fill layers. The bulk of
the cultural deposits investigated were found within the upper 5 feet of excavation. For practical reasons,
both logistic and stratigraphic, the excavation of Trench 2 was divided into north and south halves relative
to a foundation wall (Feature 10) encountered in the early part of the excavation.
The northern half of Trench 2 contained scant cultural features and consisted primarily of approximately a
dozen historic fill layers (Figure 5.2). The upper two deposits, Contexts 1 and 2, constituted a site-wide
context related to the grading and establishment of the Hertz lot parking area in the mid-twentieth century.
Beneath these site-wide deposits were a series of interleaved and localized fill deposits (Contexts 35, 38,
40, 39, 24, 37, 29, 34, and 36). Some of these deposits contained inclusions of largely whole bricks and
mortar. The interleaving of these fill sediment deposits was suggestive of a temporally contemporaneous
filling episode; i.e., a single period of filling comprised of multiple dumping episodes of material from different
locations. These interleaved fills continued down to a depth of about 3.5 feet BGS, wherein a deposit of
black sandy loam with inclusions of wood and organic material was encountered. This deposit, Context 21,
which was subsequently determined to be the same as the Context 66 on the south side of the wall, seems
to have been a continuous surface across the whole trench, likely representing an occupation surface. This
Context 21/66 surface had a TPQ of 1815 as indicated by whiteware, and a percent contribution peak
between 1815 and 1825, suggesting an early nineteenth-century origin for this deposit. Underlying the
continuous Context 21/66 surface was a layer representative of the natural riverbank (Context 27), which
overlaid the parent material of Trenton gravels (Context 31). The excavation in the northern half of the
trench continued into these natural deposits down to a terminal depth of approximately 8 feet BGS before
the unconsolidated nature of the fill, combined with groundwater intrusion, forced the abandonment of
excavation and prompted the partial backfilling of the trench to prevent
subsidence. The only feature located in the north half of the trench,
Feature 9, was a posthole and mold (Contexts 42 and 43). Feature 9
was encountered at the same depth as the Context 21/66 surface and
cut down into the underlying riverbank (Context 27) and Trenton Gravel
(Context 31) layers.
Feature 10, the dividing point between the north and south part of
Trench 2, was a 4-foot-wide wall made of roughly dressed schist held
together with lime mortar. While the upper portion of the Feature 10 wall
was 4 feet wide, its step footer base extended an additional 1 foot farther
on the south side only. The wall lines up with the southern end of the
former alley extending from the Wood Street steps, which sit just to the
west between Water and Front Streets. Examination of historic maps
indicates a structure in this location, showing that it was in line with the
northern wall of a four-story masonry building (326–328 Delaware Ave),
circa 1858, as depicted on the Hexamer map series Sheet 43, or the
even earlier north wall of the William Brown bakery, as shown on
Abraham Ritter’s depiction of the waterfront at the dawn of the
nineteenth century (Ritter 1860, 34, Hexamer & Locher 1859). The base
of the wall was cut through the Context 21/66 deposit down into the
beach sands (Contexts 27 and 28). While this wall appears to cut
through several surfaces, no discernable builder’s trench was evident in
this aforementioned layer or any of the overlying deposits. The disparity
between the fill sequences on either side of the Feature 10 wall and the
absence of any builder’s trench cut suggest that this wall was extant by
the time the overlying fills were laid down. Photo 5.8. Plan view of the south
end of Trench 5, showing the
The south side of Feature 10, the southern half of the trench, was
remnant joists beneath the Context
determined to be the interior of a structure, as it possessed a largely
47 floor.
intact floor made of roughly shaped pine floorboards. This floor surface

5.7
(Feature 11/Context 47) was encountered at a depth of 2.7 feet BGS. After mapping and photographing the
floor surface, the floorboards were removed, revealing the substructure of Feature 11. Beneath Context 47
was a series of four cut timbers that functioned as floor joists (Contexts 52, 53, 54, and 75), which were set
into a hard-packed floor base made of compacted coarse sand and gravel (Context 50/67) into which these
joists were laid (Photo 5.8). Within the Feature 11 floor, approximately 13 feet south of the Feature 10 wall,
was a granite pillar base (Feature 12/Contexts 48, 64, 60, and 59). Context 48 of Feature 12 was a 1.9-foot
square stone, 0.8 feet thick, made of granite and nicely finished on all sides. This stone was set to protrude
about 0.3 feet above the level of the Feature 11 floor. The rest of Feature 12 consisted of the support for
the Context 48 pillar base. Context 59 was a large slab of Wissahickon schist that served as a spread footer
for the column. Atop this was a layer of brick (Context 60) used to create a level platform. The Context 48
stone was held in place by a thick deposit of lime mortar (Context 61).
The Feature 12 structure, as well as the Feature 10 wall, were both cut
through a deposit of a very dark gray to brown sandy loam (Context
21/66) that included gravels and artifacts and has been interpreted as
an earlier surface extant before the construction of the building. Within
this level, a large hand-hewn timber was encountered in the east wall
of the excavation. This timber proved to be nearly 10 feet long and over
0.8 feet wide, with two mortise holes in one end, a bevel cut for receiving
a stacked timber, and a large wrought iron spike. The timber was
squared on all sides, except for the top half of the portion beneath the
bevel cut, which exhibited an obtuse triangular pitch, indicative of the
stacking of logs. Upon cleaning, the mortise joints at the opposite end
of the log indicated one perpendicular tenon and another which would
have formed a 45° angle to the main timber. The relationship of these
mortise and tenon joints is suggestive of a corner brace. The shape of
the timber is curious, and its function cannot at this time be readily
ascribed, save to say it was part of a hand-hewn timber framework for
a structure or a wharf.
Photo 5.9. Hand-hewn timber with
Apart from the features associated with the structure, the south part of mortises, beveling, and an iron spike.
the trench contained Feature 16, a circular brick-lined well shaft. This
well shaft seemingly predates the construction of the structure, as it was capped by a 4.5-foot-long
Wissahickon schist stone that was laid at the same level as the spread footer (Context 59) associated with
the Feature 12 pillar and was capped by the Context 47 pine plank floor. This brick-lined well was almost 4
feet in depth and was supported by wooden shoring (Context 83) along the sides, as well as the base of
the bricks. The well sat in the sandy gravels of the former riverbank (Context 27) natural Trenton Gravels
(Context 31) and therefore seemingly needed the support of this wooden shoring to keep it in from
collapsing during construction. The bricks were laid with a tight ring of headers and had an interior shaft
diameter of 3 feet. It was clean of fill when uncovered, likely a result of having been capped instead of
infilled.
The remaining southernmost 5 feet of Trench 2 were disturbed

due to modern construction related to the Hertz facility. This
portion of the trench featured a large concrete slab (Feature 13)
that had two 6-inch-diameter metal posts embedded within it.
The builder’s trench associated with this disturbed about 4.5
feet of fill and displaced some floorboards associated with
Feature 11. Examination of historic photographs taken during
the 1987 excavation suggests that Feature 13 was a concrete
slab foundation for a covered filling station behind the main
Hertz maintenance facility and that the two metal posts in the
slab are the remnants of bollards that protected the northern Photo 5.10. A view looking south toward Vine
end of this covered filling station (Photo 5.10). Street during the 1987 excavation, showing
covered structure with bollards (Weber and
Yamin 1988/2006, 13).

5.8
Figure 5.2. Trench 2 northern half, plan view and west wall profile.

5.9
Figure 5.3. Trench 2 southern half, plan view and west wall profile.

5.10
Feature 9 (Contexts 42 and 43)

This feature was a 0.5-x-0.5-foot timber post
that was first encountered within Context 26
and continued down through Contexts 27 and
28 of Trench 2 (Photo 5.11). Context 42 was
the posthole in which the Context 43 post was
inserted. The circular posthole has a diameter
of 1.3 feet. Some large cobbles were found
throughout the base of Feature 9, Context 43,
fill sediment likely serving a supporting
function. The location of this post was unusual,
as it was situated in the middle of the former
route of Wood Street. It may be related to
another similarly shaped post, Feature 6,
found at a similar depth in Trench 1. It is
possible that this helped hold a bulwark/wharf
in line at one point. Ultimately, its purpose is
unknown.

Feature 10 was a large masonry stone wall Photo 5.11. West wall profile of Trench 2, showing the Feature 9
with mortar. It was aligned with the southern post adjacent to the Feature 10 wall.
edge of former Wood Street in Trench 2. The
foundation was deeply buried in fill layers. The base of the wall was made of a large lintel nearly 4 feet long
on the northern face of the wall. A 1-foot-long plank was mortared into the face of Feature 10 (Context 46).
Context 44, a wooden plank, protrudes horizontally from the north face of the wall along the western edge
of the trench. The stone wall starts 1.4 feet BGS and dives down to 5.2 feet, making the wall 3.8 feet tall
(Photo 5.12). The northern face of the wall was more finely crafted than the southern face. Based on its
spatial position, this wall feature likely relates to the four-story masonry building seen in this location on the
1859 Hexamer maps.
Feature 11 (Contexts 47 and 50/67)

Feature 11 was a series of wooden planks running north-south along Trench 2. Planks abut Feature 10
(Context 45), a large schist wall running east-west to the south. Feature 11 has four 3.5-x-1.0-foot planks
touching three approximately 9.5-x-1.0-foot planks. While stripping, a few planks were removed, revealing
a couple of joists, indicating that while Feature 11 was made of separate pieces of planks at different
lengths, the floor itself was one building episode. Contexts 50 and 67 both represent the same context, the
prepared floor beneath a wooden floor. The prepared surface/fill layer was used to put planks on to make
a level working surface. The prepared floor was compact and has a high concentration of gravel. At the
southern end of the trench, the prepared floor was “cut” by modern disturbances. Feature 11, along with
Feature 12, can be seen in Photo 5.13.

Feature 12 in Trench 2 at the southern end was a square granite pillar that was not fully exposed. Nothing
was collected from this feature, but it was documented with photographs and shown in trench plan view
and profile drawings. Context 48 was the base of the pillar related to Feature 10. Context 59 was a large
schist slab that was dressed and used as a footer for the granite pillar. A single course of brick supported
each side of the granite pillar base, along with a layer of mortar holding everything in place. Feature 12,
along with Feature 11, can be seen in Photo 5.13.

5.11
Photo 5.12. South profile of the Feature 10 stone wall.
Photo 5.13. A view of the Feature 11 plank floor in Trench 2, showing how it meets up with the Feature 12 stone pillar base,
facing north.

5.12

Feature 13 was a modern concrete block with circular staining. It most likely postdates the wooden floor,
granite pillar, and schist wall to the northern section of Trench 2. Two metal posts were sunken into the
concrete pillar. This was likely a footing for a mid-twentieth-century bollard associated with a covered filling
station or work area associated with the Hertz occupation.
Photo 5.14. A view of Feature 13, the concrete footer for to metal post (right).
Feature 14 (Context 67/50)

Feature 14 was a prepared foundation for a floor of wooden planks above it (Context 47, Feature 11; Photo
5.15). Cutting through part of Feature 14 was a marble pillar base (Feature 12/Context 48), which sat atop
a course of brick in a bed of mortar. It is likely that this prepared floor was laid down in order to create a
new surface after a well was capped, which exists about half a foot below Feature 14.

5.13
Photo 5.15. Plan view of the Feature 14 subfloor of compacted coarse sand supporting the wood floor joists of Feature
15.
Feature 15 (Contexts 52–54 and 75)

Feature 15 was a collection of wooden joist supports beneath a wooden floor that covers a large portion of
Trench 2 (Feature 11/Context 47). These supports sit atop Feature 14, a prepared floor surface (Context
50/67), and hold the boards above in place. Farther below was a well with a cap, so this floor was likely
reinforced with these wooden supports to prevent shifting and possible collapse of the floor below. Feature
15 can be seen in Photo 5.15.
Feature 16 (Contexts 58, 72, 83, and 77)

Feature 16 was a 3-foot-wide stone and brick well capped by a Wissahickon schist slab (Context 58; Photo
5.14). Context 83 was a pair of wooden planks placed upright against the vertical axis of the well walls, and
Context 77 was a pair of pieces of wood beneath the bottommost bricks of the well. It is likely that Contexts
77 and 83 were used to support the initial construction of the well and maintain its stability in the
unconsolidated fills during construction, acting as shoring for the well builders (Photo 5.16). The interior of
the well shaft did not appear to have been infilled prior to its abandonment, as the bulk of the shaft was a
void when it was encountered. The desire to prevent eventual subsidence of the infill was likely the reason
that the well was capped instead of just being filled in prior to the establishment of the overlying floor,
Feature 14. No datable material was recovered from the interior of the well, so all that can be said about its
age is that it was abandoned prior to the establishment of Feature 14.

5.14
Photo 5.16. West wall profile of Trench 2, showing the Feature 16 well in profile. The well shaft was empty beneath its cap.

5.15
Trench 3
Trench 3 was 50 x 5 feet, running northeast to southwest, and was excavated to a terminal depth of
approximately 7 feet before groundwater inundation forced the abandonment of excavation (groundwater
first encountered at 6.5 feet BGS). This trench was situated in the western portion of the lot, south of the
Wood Street steps, and was placed in part to investigate the nature and extent of disturbance associated
with the installation and subsequent removal of a large underground storage tank.
The upper two deposits of Trench 3, Contexts 1 and 2, constitute a site-wide context related to the grading
and establishment of the Hertz lot parking area in the mid-twentieth century. Beneath these site-wide
deposits, a stone foundation wall, Feature 19, was encountered in the northern end of the trench. Feature
19 (Context 96) was made of mortared schist and was approximately 1.5 feet wide and ran east to west,
perpendicular to Water Street. To the north of Feature 19, beneath two layers of brick and mortar demolition
rubble (Context 98 and 99), an intact wooden pine plank floor (Feature 20/Context 97) was encountered.
This suggested that the Feature 19 structure’s interior lay to the north, with the southern face of the wall
being the exterior of the structure. Underlying the floor (Feature 20) were the accompanying floor joists
(Contexts 125–129), which were laid into a matrix of dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/4) sand with rounded
gravels that had been compacted in around the joist as a prepared surface to hold the overlying Feature
20 floor. Underlying the floor and its prepared surface were additional silty sandy fill deposits (Contexts 147,
150, and 151).
At a depth of about 3–4 feet BGS, two additional stone wall contexts (138 and 139) were encountered, as
well as the footer for the Feature 19/Context 96 stone wall (Figure 5.4). Context 138 was approximately 2
feet wide and ran north from where it abutted Context 137, the wide slab stone spread footer for the Feature
19 foundation wall. About 4 feet to the east, the remains of another north-south running wall (Context 139)
were also encountered. This wall or wall footer ran parallel to Context 138 and perpendicular to Context
137. Given the layers of fill between these two contexts and the overlying Context 20 floor, Contexts 138
and 139 do not appear to be structurally related to the floor surface and are likely related to an earlier
structure. The narrow spacing between the structures, however, might suggest that they functioned as part
of the landfill stabilization for the building, essentially as stone cribbing for fill. Excavation on the south side
of Feature 19 revealed that its footer, Context 137, was made of large stone slabs that were nearly 6 feet
wide and 1 foot thick. These slabs were crudely mortared together and appear at the same depth as the
adjacent Contexts 138 and 139 wall footers to the north.
On the south side of the Feature 19 foundation wall, the trench profile was characterized by a series of
distinct and largely continuous historic fill deposits (Figure 5.4). This fill sequence began with two demolition
layers, Contexts 109 and 110, which overlaid more uniform deposits of historic fill. At a depth of 1.9–2.3
feet BGS, a deposit of dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/6) silty loam with brick inclusions (Context 105) was
encountered. The Context 105 fill capped Context 106, a brown (10YR4/3) silty loam with brick inclusions
that extended to a depth of 2.8 feet BGS. The only diagnostic material recovered from the Context 106
deposit was a fragment of a 5/64 diameter white ball clay pipe stem. From 2.8–3.1 feet BGS, the fill became
a dark gray (7.5YR4/1) silty loam with inclusions of brick and gravel. Based on the ceramics recovered from
Context 107, the deposit has a percent contribution peak range of between 1790 and 1830, with a TPQ of
1815 (based on whiteware). This deposit contained material from as early as the late seventeenth century,
but nothing that had an initial manufacturing date later than 1815. This deposit likely represented an
occupation surface. Underlying the Context 107 deposit was a thin band of burned material that only
presented in the western portion of the trench. Underlying this lens, Context 112, a pale brown (10YR6/3)
compact silty sand silty loam deposit, was encountered. This historic fill deposit contained a limited number
of artifacts, but those that were found included a sherd of Bristol slip stoneware (n=1), Nottingham
stoneware (n=1), burnt wood (n=2), redware (n=1), and bone (n=6). This fill was largely homogenous and
compacted, terminating at a depth of about 3.6 feet BGS. The next layer of historic fill, Context 113, was
comprised of black (10YR2/1) silty loam. This deposit, which extended to a depth of 4.6 feet BGS, contained
artifacts like slipped redwares, green glazed Iberian coarse earthenware, and Nottingham stoneware.
Underlying Context 113 was Context 117, a light olive-brown (2.5Y5/3) silty sand that extended to a depth
of about 5 feet BGS. This deposit produced a variety of slipped redware (n=6), redware (n=9), British buff-
bodied slipware (n=2), white salt-glazed stoneware (n=2), Iberian earthenware (n=1), cut mammal bone

5.16
(n=26), oyster shell (n=7), and several pipe fragments (n=3)(diameter 5/64 and 6/64). This deposit has a
TPQ of 1790 and a percent contribution peak range of 1720–1780, indicating an eighteenth-century origin
for this deposit. The final deposit to be sampled was a dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/4) silty sand (Context
133), which extended to a depth of 5.3 feet BGS. This deposit was largely sterile, apart from a single rim
sherd of a British buff-bodied slipware dish (produced from 1670 to 1795).
Excavation in the middle section of the trench provided evidence of several features and contexts that allow
for additional interpretation of the recovered materials. Along the southwestern side of Feature 19, a wide
builder’s trench was visible, cutting through nearly all the fill horizons. This builder’s trench was comprised
of fill Contexts 101, 104, and 108. The uppermost of these builder’s trench fill sediments, Context 104,
contained redwares, whitewares, creamware, and Chinese export porcelain, giving the layer a TPQ of 1815
and a percent contribution peak range of 1815–1820. As this builder’s trench cut through every historic fill
deposit from 100 to 117, it suggests that those layers were extant by the time that the Feature 19 wall was
constructed.
In the middle of the trench, at a depth of about 3.8 feet BGS, Context 123 was encountered. This deposit
was a localized pocket of brick and mortar debris and burned wood suspended in a very dark gray brown
(10YR3/2) silty sand matrix. This deposit extended down to a depth of 4.5 feet BGS, at which point the
Context 179 brick well shaft (Feature 31) was encountered. It was subsequently determined that Context
123 was a caved-in portion of the upper part of the well that had been infilled with demolition debris. As
Context 123 began at the same depth as Context 113, with no evidence of the shaft having been cut through
the overlying fills, it appears that the well was installed when Context 113 was a utilized ground surface at
some point in the mid to late eighteenth century.
At the same depth as the well, several remnant pilings were encountered within the trench south of the
Feature 19 foundation. These included Contexts 116, 173, 174, and 176—all of which were found within
the Context 117 deposit. The most well preserved of these pilings, Context 116 (Feature 23), was found to
have an ax-cut point and to be principally a debarked log. While only a few such piles were located, they
appear to be temporally related and are the remains of an early pier prior to more substantial land-
reclamation efforts. Context 173, one of the pilings, was found beneath Context 139, the spread footer
stone for the Feature 19 wall. The presence of the Context 139 footer capping one of these pilings suggests
that the pilings (and by association, the indicated pier) had been abandoned prior to the construction of the
Feature 19 foundation wall. This suggests that the pilings are likely associated with a structure from an
early incarnation of waterfront prior to the nineteenth-century land-reclamation and building episodes.
The southwesternmost 20 feet of the trench were determined to have been disturbed as a result of the
removal of a twentieth-century fuel tank that had been part of the Hertz filling station. This disturbance was
demarked by soldier piles and lagging and the beginning of a largely homogenous infill comprised of a
loosely compacted white sand. Just to the east of this was another historic disturbance, Context 114
(Feature 21), a trench cut related to a cluster of electrical conduits also related to the Hertz occupation
(Figure 5.4). While Feature 21 did truncate the bulk of the historic fill deposits, it stopped above Context
117, which remained largely intact beneath.

5.17
Figure 5.4. Trench 3, plan view and south wall profile.

5.18
Test Unit 2 and Test Unit 2 Southwest Extension

Test Unit 2 was a 2-x-9-foot unit running along the north wall of the trench and extending to the edge of
Context 96 (Feature 19)—a nineteenth-century stone wall-oriented east to west. This unit was excavated
to examine Context 104—a nineteenth-century builder’s trench directly associated with Context 96, to
further expose the north profile, and to explore Context 96 (Feature 19) in profile. Test Unit 2 was initially
excavated using an arbitrary datum set 0.23 feet above the trench floor surface where the unit was laid
(approximately 2.65 feet BGS). Subsequent flooding compromised this local datum, so depths were from
then on taken from the ground surface. The unit was opened on top of Context 104 and Context 107, at
about 3 feet BGS. Context 104 was a historic builder’s trench for Feature 19. It was a muddled brick-laden
fill extending about 6 feet from Context 96. This builder’s trench was completely excavated, and its fill
screened. The artifacts collected encompass a variety of early-nineteenth-century material, including
whiteware (n=4), creamware (n=1), Chinese export porcelain (n=1), redware (n=3), olive container glass
(n=1), window glass (n=3), a nail (n=1), a hand-wrought nail (n-1), bone (n=6), shell (n=3), and coal (n=1).
Context 104 was about 0.6 feet deep and continued to recede in size closer to Context 96. The builder’s
trench cut a series of historic fills predating the construction of Context 96. Beneath Context 104 was
Context 118, which was a highly contaminated fill associated with the large granite footer underlying Context
96. This fill was not screened.
Test 2 Southwest Expansion

A 2.5-x-3-foot extension was added to Test Unit 2
(Photo 5.17). The southwest expansion of Test
Unit 2 was placed to gather more information
about Feature 23 (Context 116), which was a
round wooden post with a circular postmold, and
to see an extended window of the southern
profile. Feature 23 and Feature 22 were both
excavated. Feature 22 was ultimately determined
to not be a feature, but rather just a rounded
smaller piece of granite that likely migrated from
Feature 19. This unit encountered two new fill
contexts that were not impacted by the
nineteenth-century builder’s trench. Context 123
was a late-eighteenth-century fill with large brick
inclusions capping a potential mid- to early- Photo 5.17. Test Unit 2 Southwest Expansion, Context 113,
eighteenth-century well—Feature 31. Context Context 117, and Context 123 in plan view.
123 could have been debris from the destruction
of the upper portion of the well. Context 112 was merely a small historic fill pocket.

5.19

Feature 19 was mid- to late-nineteenth-century
stone wall (Photo 5.18). It was three courses thick
and sat atop Feature 45, a spread footer made of
wide slabs of granite. Feature 19 is seen on the
1858 Hexamer map, and again on the 1875
Hopkins map, aligning with the south wall of a
four-story masonry building (Hexamer & Locher
1859, Hopkins 1875). The city of Philadelphia
directory commissioned by McElroy in 1858 links
Feature 19 as the south wall of 322–324 North
Delaware Avenue and 325 North Water Street. At
that time, the property was the location of Potts
WM. B. & CO. In that same directory, William B.
Potts and Edward D. Potts were listed as flour and
grain merchants. As this area was principally the
site of mercantile warehouses, it is likely that this
Photo 5.18. Feature 19 and Feature 20.
building was being used to store four and grain for
distribution or sale.

Feature 20 was a series of floorboards in the eastern end of Trench 3 abutting Feature 19 (Photo 5.18).
The wood was made of pine and, subsequently, Trench 3 had an overwhelming smell of damp decaying
pine. The planks ran parallel to the Feature 19 foundation wall. The planks were roughly 0.9 feet in width
and had a varying length from 2 feet to about 5 feet. The floor was covered by brick and mortar fills. The
surface of the floor was roughly 0.5 feet below the edge of Feature 19. These floor planks sat atop Contexts
125–129, which were historic floor joists running perpendicular to Feature 19 and suspended in a matrix of
compacted coarse sand.

Feature 21 was made up of a trench cut for the installation of a series of eight electrical conduit pipes (Photo
5.19). The south profile showed the drastic impact that the installation of electrical conduit pipes had on the
historic fills. The soils in which the pipes sat was very loose and unstable. The conduit pipes were no longer
in use. Based on the depth and position of the cut containing these conduits, they appear to be associated
with the rear maintenance building for the Hertz Rent-a-Car facility, suggesting a mid-twentieth-century date
for the feature.

5.20
Photo 5.19. Feature 21 cutting through Context 110, 105, 107, 111, 112, and 113.

Excavation to the west of Feature 22 revealed that the granite stone was just an isolated stone within
Context 107. The paperwork from the field reflects this change. The stone was likely robbed from Feature
19 during a demolition episode.

Feature 23 was excavated within Test Unit 2 Southwest
Extension at roughly the center of Trench 3 (Photo
5.20). The remnant post was rounded, likely just a
debarked log pile that upon excavation was shown to
have had an ax-cut point at its base. The posthole
containing the post cuts Context 107 and subsequently
Context 117, which directly underlies Context 107. The
post appeared to have a builder’s trench, but it is
possible that the discoloration around the extant wood
was the result of organic staining and not a deliberate
hole dug to set the post. Its overall function is
inconclusive, although other similar posts were found
in Trench 1 and 2 to the north, and other possible posts
were found to the east within Trench 3. This might
suggest that Feature 23 was part of a system of piles Photo 5.20. Post and posthole of Feature 23 in
used to support an early wharf. the southwest corner of Test Unit 2.
Feature 31 (Contexts 123 and179)

Feature 31 was a well shaft comprised of two main contexts: Context 123 and Context 178. Context 123
was a column of disarticulated brick rubble, likely the upper structure of the well that was destroyed and

5.21
collapsed. Context 123 cut both Contexts 113 and 117, which appear to be early-nineteenth-century
deposits. The Context 179 portion of the feature contains an intact structure with double courses of brick in
a running bond alternating with stringer courses (Photo 5.21). The nature of the infill was speculative due
to flooding at 6.4 feet BGS. This portion of the feature cut Contexts 133 and 178, which both appear to be
early eighteenth century in nature. Based on the presence of the Context 123 cut higher up, the well was
assumed to be nineteenth century. Prior to the fire in 1850, this area was the site of several incarnations of
bakeries, including those run by William B. Brown and Sons (circa 1800–1809), C. Collins (circa 1810), and
William T. Bladen (circa 1820–1849) (Ritter 1860, Robinson 1810, Robinson 1805, Whitely 1820, Desilver
1830, McElroy 1849). These early-nineteenth-century bakeries represent an industry that would have
benefited from ready access to water and may explain the presence of such a feature in this location. It is
important to note that the Context 123 matrix contained inclusions of burnt wood, which would track with its
abandonment after the fire, having been infilled during the subsequent reconstruction.
Photo 5.21. Brick shaft of Feature 31.

Feature 34 was a wooden pier footer post used in the construction of an eighteenth-century pier on the
wharf edge. Context 174 cut into Context 178 and, likely, the natural beach-like sandy soil beneath. Feature
34 was one of several pier footers in the area, like Contexts 173 and 176.

Feature 35 was a 1-foot-wide wooden beam running north to south across Trench 3, parallel to Water
Street. The timber was impacted by the backhoe, but appeared to have been hewn. The beam cut into
Context 178, a seventeenth- to eighteenth-century deposit, and was likely related to some early wharfing

5.22
effort. Everything beyond Feature 35 has been disturbed by tank removal. The removal effort drove soldier
piles and lagging into the area to hold in tank removal fill. This beam may be related to several nearby piles
driven into the same Context 178 deposit. A full excavation of the feature was not possible due to the
flooding of the trench.

Feature 36 was a wooden pier footer from the eighteenth-century occupation, found at approximately 6.4
feet BGS. The pier ran north-south along with Context 173. Feature 36 cut Context 178 and most likely the
underlying natural beach soils. The pier was associated with the eighteenth-century wharf edge. Context
176 was next to 179 to its west and in line with Context 173. It was likely part of a long line of posts running
north-south along the edge of the eighteenth-century wharf, which was used to form a planked pier. As
noted above, Feature 36 cut into Context 178, which yielded an ample sample of eighteenth-century
materials, and Context 133 had a low artifact density, suggesting natural silty river soils.

Feature 45 was a granite stone wall footer supporting Feature 19, a nineteenth-century wall. There was a
similar structure in Trench 5 with Features 27 and 28, both stone walls. Ultimately, Feature 45 was removed
via machine excavation.
Trench 4
Trench 4 was initially a 5-x-50-foot trench running north-south through the middle of the south end of the
Vine Street lot. Trench 4 was extended an additional 6 feet north and 9 feet south in order to properly
delineate encountered structural features. At the southern end of the resultant 65-foot trench, a 4-x-4-foot
test unit was excavated to investigate the fills in relation to an encountered foundation wall (Feature 42).
Trench 4 was situated to examine the impact of the Hertz maintenance facility, the concrete foundation for
which occupied the southern two-thirds of the trench. The reinforced concrete was saw cut and then
hydraulic hammered to remove it and expose the underlying soils. Total excavation depth of Trench 4 was
approximately 6 feet, a depth at which dredge spoil sands (Contexts 198 and 199) full of corals were
encountered and water began to inundate, terminating excavation.
Underlying Context 1, Context 2 (asphalt and gravel base) and Context 183 (Hertz building concrete floor)
were a series of historic fills. Across the length of the trench, there were three locations where the remains
of the Hertz maintenance building cut into the underlying fill stratigraphy. The northernmost was Feature
24/Context 225, a 2.3-foot-wide concrete foundation wall that extended nearly 4 feet down. Approximately
18 feet to the south of Feature 24 was Feature 37 (Context 179), a 1.5-foot-wide concrete footer for a
cinderblock wall that was once part of the Hertz maintenance building. Feature 37 extended down about 3
feet BGS and came through the Context 183 concrete slab that was the floor to the Hertz building. The final
modern feature, in the southeasternmost corner of the trench, was a concrete pillar footing, Feature
40/Context 210. Its ultimate dimension is unknown, as it was not fully exposed, but it did continue down to
a depth of 3.5 feet BGS. Apart from these modern disturbances and their associated builder’s trenches, the
stratigraphy of the trench was largely uniform.
While deeper strata were largely continuous, upper strata did differ to either side of the Feature 24
foundation. On the north side, much of the upper layer of historic fill, Context 20, had been graded away
and replaced with the same Context 100 fill used to backfill the builder’s trench of Feature 24. Context 120,
a black (10YR2/1) silty loam deposit, was the first trench-wide context encountered, with the only
abbreviations to its matrix occurring where Features 24 and 31 and their builder’s trenches cut through
them. Context 120 contained a variety of material, including cut bone (n=4), coral (n=1), shell (n=1), British
buff-bodied slipware (n=1), creamware (n=1), porcelain, Chinese export (n=1), redware (n=1), whiteware
(n=1), and yellowware (n=1). This context has a TPQ of 1828 based on yellowware and a percent
contribution peak range of 1760–1820. In the northern portion of the trench, two additional contexts (Context
164 and 165) were identified, though subsequent reexamination suggests they are likely pockets of the
large Context 120 matrix. Underlying the Context 120 matrix was a thin fill deposit of Context 160 (in the

5.23
south) and Context 166 (in the north). These two fill deposits likely represent a single continuous fill episode,
which tapers and terminates in the southern portion of the trench. The only material to come from the
Context 166 deposit was the neck of a mouth-blown olive glass bottle, which was found between 3.1 and
3.4 feet BGS. The next continuous fill deposit was Context 167, a dark yellowish-brown (10YR3/4) silty
sand that contained bone (n=2), mouth-blown olive container glass (n=2), shell (n=2), aqua window glass
(n=2), Chinese export porcelain (n=2), and redware (n=2). Underlying Context 167 was a thin band of
yellowish-brown (10YR5/8) sand that capped another dark yellowish-brown (10YR3/6) silty loam deposit
like Context 167, only with inclusions of small gravels within its matrix. Context 169 contained bone (n=1),
nails (n=3), redware (n=7), white salt-glazed stoneware (n=1), and whiteware (n=5). The TPQ for this
deposit is 1815, owing to the presence of whiteware.
The next continuous context identified within the trench was Context 197, a deposit of black (10YR2/1) silty
loam that was likely a historic ground surface on a late-eighteenth-century wharf. This deposit, which was
encountered between 4.6 and 5.2 feet BGS, contained a myriad of late-eighteenth- to early-nineteenth-
century ceramics and it was within this matrix that Features 42, a stone foundation, and Feature 43, an
associated brick porch, were first encountered. This context contained nails (n=10), iron spikes (n=5),
common glass vessel glass (n=25), window glass (n=12), non-lead glass container (n=3), non-lead glass
tumbler (n=4), strike a light (n=1), shell (n=14), coral (n=1), creamware (n=69), pearlware (n=41), Chinese
export porcelain (n=7), hard-paste porcelain (n=23), Prattware (n=4), red-bodied earthenware (n=4),
redware (n=174), brown/gray bodied salt-glazed stoneware (n=7), gray/buff-bodied salt-glazed stoneware
(n=6), tin-glazed earthenware (n=7), unidentified refined earthenware (n=1), pipe stems and bowl fragments
(n=12), and white salt-glazed stoneware (n=18). This material has a TPQ of 1803 and a percent contribution
peak date of 1760–1815. Underlying Context 198 was a deposit of dark gray (10YR4/1) silty sand that
contained substantial inclusions of coral, suggesting an oceanic origin for this fill material. While a limited
number of artifacts were retrieved from this context, most of them from within Test Unit 4, several diagnostic
artifacts were recovered. The artifact assemblage for Context 198 included pearlware (n=1), creamware
(n=2), agateware (n=1), white salt-glazed stoneware (n=1), Chinese export porcelain (n=6), redware (n=2),
brick (n=1), coral (n=21), wood (n=2), bone (n=1), and a pipe stem (n=1) with a bore diameter of 5/64. The
TPQ for this deposit is 1775 based on pearlware, and the peak of the percent contribution occurred between
1775 and 1785. The underlying deposit Context 199 contained no diagnostic artifacts, but was a similar
dredge spoil fill comprised of a light gray (2.5Y7/1) silty sand with coral inclusions, suggesting that for this
early wharfing-out episode, material was sourced from a distance and imported in bulk by ship specifically
for the land-reclamation effort. The silty sand dredge spoil fill with inclusions of coral continued to the base
of excavation at a depth of 9 feet BGS. While no cribbing was found in association with these fills, these
dredge fill contexts (Contexts 198 and 199) are indicative of land-reclaiming processes and the
establishment of new ground along the waterfront during the late eighteenth century. Given that these
deposits are capped by a late-eighteenth-century layer (Context 197), the construction of the wharf in this
area likely took place before the dawn of the nineteenth century, but after 1762, as historic maps show this
area as water during that time (Scull, Clarkson and Biddle 1762).
In the northern portion of the trench, an additional segment of the Feature 19/Context 96 wall found in
Trench 3 was located. The stone wall itself was capped by two thin deposits of silty and sandy loam
(Contexts 103 and 121). On either side of the Feature 19 wall was a distinct builder’s trench cut (Context
122), which extended to a depth of 4.8 feet BGS. This Context 122 builder’s trench cut through several fills,
suggesting that the wall was built after those fills had been established. Only a body sherd of unidentified
stoneware and a sherd of a slip-decorated redware dish were recovered from Context 122, so dating of this
deposit by means other than relative dating is not currently possible. Interestingly, while the Feature 19 wall
continues into Trench 4, there was no evidence of the pine floor or remnant joists found to the north of the
wall in Trench 3.
In the southern end of the trench, a stone foundation (Feature 42) and associated brick porch (Feature 43)
were located. These features were encountered at the same general depth as Context 197, suggesting that
Context 197 was indeed an occupation surface. Given that these features are cut into Context 197, it
appears that this structure is also likely associated with the late-eighteenth- to early nineteenth-century use
of the wharf, when it was functioning as a mercantile center.

5.24
Figure 5.5. Trench 4, northern half, plan view and east wall profile.

5.25
Figure 5.6. Trench 4, southern half, plan view and east wall profile.

5.26
Test Unit 4
Test Unit 4 was 4 x 4 feet and placed at the southernmost end of Trench 4 to examine a loamy deposit with
a large amount of mid-eighteenth-century artifacts and Feature 42. All measurements were taken from the
current ground surface. Test Unit 4 opened on Context 197, an eighteenth-century fill deposit with wood
pulp and a large amount of mendable ceramics. It was described as a black (10YR2/1) loam and opened
at 5.05 feet BGS, ending on top of Context 198 at 5.70 feet BGS (Photo 5.22). This context abutted Feature
42 and overlaid Context 198, which was the first layer of the river sands. In Context 197, several mendable
samples of hand-painted tin-glazed vessels, overglazed and underglazed gilded porcelain, thin-bodied
hand-painted redware, and kaolin pipes were collected. Context 197 had the most robust artifact collection
of any of the areas excavated. This context seemed unaffected by modern construction. Context 202, which
sat just above Context 197 in profile, was a layer of demolition fill that was a result of mid-nineteenth-century
impaction.
Photo 5.22. Trench 4 west profile and Unit 4 west Photo 5.23. Unit 4 closing plan view after removing Context
profile. 197 and Context 198. Feature 42 (stone foundation) is sitting
on Context 199.
Feature 42 was a three-course stone wall built directly on top of Context 199. It was clear during excavation
that Context 198 was purposefully placed around Feature 42. The soil was likely placed as a yard surface
or a simple exterior surface over the loosely structured sandy river soils as a means of stabilizing the ground
surface. Water began to inundate once Context 198 was reached (Photo 5.23). Context 198 had a sparse
amount of artifacts, but predominantly had marine coral. Underlying Context 198 was Context 199. This
was a loose structured beach-like sand with coral. At this depth, groundwater began to inundate.

5.27

Feature 24 was the first of three large modern concrete foundation footers found within Trench 4. These
foundation walls once supported the Hertz Rent-a-Car building. Feature 24 was the largest of the three, at
2.2 feet wide, and extended 4 feet BGS. A layer of reinforced concrete, Context 183, began just south of
this feature and spanned the southern extent of Trench 4, indicating the interior of the Hertz Rent-a-Car
structure. Though this feature extends 4 feet into the ground, it does not appear to have had any impact on
any deposits from Context 169 down. This lack of disturbance is evident by the fact that Context 197, which
runs beneath this foundation feature, was one of the more intact and productive archaeological deposits on
the site, producing a large about of mid-eighteenth-century artifacts from the southern half of Trench 4.

Feature 37 was the second concrete foundation related to the Hertz Rent-a-Car building. This footer was
narrower than Feature 21, being only 1.25 feet wide. The Feature 37/Context 186 foundation wall cut
through the Context 183 reinforced concrete slab, which was the floor surface of the Hertz building. It is
likely that Feature 37 was established first and the Context 183 floor was established on either side after
the fact. Given the friability of the Feature 37 matrix that cuts through Context 183, it appears that this
feature was the footer for a cinder block wall, remnants of the cinder block being trapped in the mortar and
concrete of underlying and adjacent Contexts 186 and 183.

Feature 40 was a twentieth-century concrete pier that served as part of the support structure of the Hertz
Rent-a-Car building. While the Feature 40 concrete pier overlaid the Feature 42 foundation, it does not
seem to have disturbed its structure nor did it impact the adjacent Feature 43 brick pad.

Feature 42 was a roughly articulated stone
wall with decaying mortar (Photo 5.24). The
wall was 2 feet thick and contained three
courses of mortared stone. Feature 42 was
initially found within Test Unit 4, and
excavation was subsequently expanded to
further delineate the structure. This
foundation was set atop a deposit of dredge
spoil that contained corals, indicating that
both it and the adjacent brick pad, Feature
43, were constructed on the wharf after a
period of land reclamation. Based on historic
mapping, this structure was built at some
point after 1762, as the map of that year
shows the site of this feature as part of the
Delaware River at that time (Scull, Clarkson
and Biddle 1762). Given the high
concentration of late-eighteenth- and early-
nineteenth-century ceramics found in the
adjacent fill sediment, it is likely that this
feature is associated with the early
mercantile period on the site.
Photo 5.24. Southern end of Trench 4 plan view. Shown: Context 197,
Feature 42, and Feature 44.

5.28

Feature 44 was a brick walkway or porch related to an eighteenth-century building (Photo 5.24). Feature
44 was two courses deep, averaging 0.6 feet in total depth. Feature 44 abuts Feature 42 and underlies
Context 197. The Feature 44 brick pad extends 3.6 feet north of the Feature 42 foundation. While only a
1.5-foot-wide section of the pad was excavated within the trench, it appears to continue to the east. The
northwest corner of this brick pad had a stone flag instead of brick, suggesting it was used to support weight
like a post or pillar, lending credence to the interpretation of the brick pad as a porch structure on the outside
of the Feature 42 building.
Trench 5
Trench 5 was initially a 5-x-50-foot trench, which was later extended to approximately 55 feet in length.
Trench 5 was initially dug to a depth of approximately 3.4 feet BGS, at which point several foundation walls
and floor surfaces were revealed. Once these features were photographed, mapped, and profiled, these
walls and features were removed, and excavation continued beneath. From its initial excavation depth,
Trench 5 was machine excavated an additional 4.2 feet to a terminal depth of 7.6 feet below ground, at
which point water inundation curtailed further excavation.
The uppermost stratum in Trench 5 was the asphalt surface of the parking lot (Context 1), which in this
location sat directly above the reinforced concrete slab that was the floor of the Hertz maintenance building
(Context 134). Context 134 was likely part of the same slab as Context 183 in Trench 3, but as they were
spatially separated by some distance, they were assigned unique context numbers. Underlying the
maintenance building slab floor was a continuous deposit of brown (7.5YR4/4) silty sand (Context 104) that
functioned as a leveling fill.
Underlying the Context 104 leveling fill, several features were encountered. In the southeast corner of the
trench, a modern concrete pillar associated with the maintenance facility (Feature 25) was partially
exposed. This concrete pillar footer sat partially atop of Feature 26, a 3-foot section of log initially identified
as a potential wooden water pipe, as it appeared hollow. Upon fully exposing Feature 26, it was determined
to be a segment of a partially decayed telephone pole, tossed into the cut for the Feature 25 concrete pillar
footer when it was installed in the mid-twentieth century.
The Feature 25 pillar also truncated a portion of another feature. The impacted feature was Feature
27/Context 162, which was a 1.5-foot-wide mortared schist stone wall running east-west perpendicular to
Water Street. The eastern foot of this wall had been cut away during the installation of the Feature 25
concrete footer, but the western portion remained intact. Feature 27 ran parallel to another stone wall of
similar construction, situated just 1.5 feet to the north. This other wall (Feature 28/Context 163) had similarly
been impacted by the installation of Feature 25 along its western edge, though this impact only seems to
have removed a few stones of the overall structure. The Feature 27 and 28 stone walls appear to be an
eastern continuation of Features 2 and 3 from Trench 2 of the 2012 excavations, located about 60 feet to
the west (John Milner Associates, Inc. 2013). To the north of Features 27 and 28, there was a large gap of
about 16–17 feet to the next mortared schist stone wall, Feature 29/Contest 172. This stone wall was 2.5
feet wide and was not accompanied by another stone wall, though it too ran east-west perpendicular to
Water Street and is in alignment with Feature 4 from Trench 2 of the 2012 excavations (John Milner
Associates, Inc. 2013). In the very northern extreme of the trench, the final wall feature, Feature 38/Context
200, was encountered. This wall feature was a combination of a truncated stonewall in the east and a
modern concrete footing in the west. The actual width of the original stone wall was not ascertained, as it
extended beyond the length of the trench, but it appears to have been at least 2 feet wide. The spacing
between these wall features effectively divided the length of the trench into three areas, in which different
fill sequences were observed.
In the northern portion of the trench, the first deposit beneath the Context 140 grading fill was a thin band
of Context 153, a very dark grayish-brown (10YR3/2) silty sand. This deposit was continued about 6 feet
north of the Feature 29 wall before being cut by Context 192. Underlying Context 153 was an intact wood
floor (Context 182), which sat atop a series of decayed joists that were set into Context 188, a prepared
surface made of brown (10YR5/3) silty loam. This deposit overlaid Context 189, a dark grayish-brown silty

5.29
loam, which was also cut by Context 192. Context 189 overlaid Context 190, a yellowish-brown (10YR5/4)
silty sand that capped a grayish-brown silty sand deposit, Context 191. The northernmost section of the
trench, especially the western side, was disturbed by a builder’s trench for the concrete portion of the
Feature 38 wall/footer. This cut had been made to install the footer and had cut through portions of the pine
board floor, its subbase, and several of the underlying strata. It was subsequently infilled with Contexts 193,
194, and 223, which contained a mix of historic and modern materials. One of these backfill contexts,
Context 194, contained some late-seventeenth- to early-eighteenth-century ceramics, like tin-glazed
earthenware, manganese mottled earthenware, and British buff-bodied earthenware, as well as Chinese
export porcelain, pipe stems, and redware. However, this context also produced modern materials like
plastic coffee cup lids likely thrown into the hole by workmen installing the footer in the mid-twentieth
century. Despite the lack of integrity, the presence of such material in this area of localized disturbance
suggests that intact deposits of a similar age exist nearby, as the backfill was a mix of local fill soils, not
imported material from off-site. Further evidence of the modern origin of the cut in the northern end of the
trench is a remnant piece of plywood used as a form (Context 196) for pouring the concrete portion of
Feature 38.
The deepest deposit excavated in the northern portion of the trench was Context 195, which was
characterized by the appearance of a gray (10YR5/1) sand with inclusions of wood debris. This matrix was
cut by Feature 39/Context 201, a 1.3-foot-wide hand-hewn timber that ran roughly east-west relative to
Water Street. This timber was encountered at a depth of 3.8 feet BGS and continued to a depth of 4.8 feet
BGS. This timber was largely intact, though it had sustained some damage to its western end as a result of
the twentieth-century builder’s trench. Underlying this timber within the Context 195 matrix were additional
timbers, Contexts 244, 222, and 221, running perpendicular to the Feature 39 timber. These deeper timbers
were far less intact and not as nicely hewn as Feature 39. Unfortunately, groundwater inundation prevented
the full investigation of the wharf timbers below this depth; however, given their orientation and relative to
the overlying Feature 39 timber, these deeper timbers appear to be part of a raft structure used to build a
grillage wharf, which was infilled by the sands of Context 195. The sandy matrix of Context 195 did produce
cultural material, including British buff-bodied slipware (n=1), Chinese export porcelain (n=1), redware (slip
decorated) (n=7), white salt-glazed stoneware (n=3), aqua-colored common glass (n=1), shell (n=3), bone
(n=3), unidentified iron bar (n=1), and leather shoe fragments (n=4). This deposit did include one intrusive
piece of white granite, introduced by the overlying builder’s trench disturbance. Compensating for the
intrusive sherd of white granite, the deposit has a TPQ of 1720, with a peak percent contribution range of
1720–1780, suggesting that this fill and its associated timbers are likely part of the early-eighteenth-century
wharfing efforts, potentially providing a surface for shipbuilding activities.
The central portion of the trench, between Feature 28 and Feature 29, contained a series of banded fills
beneath the Context 104 grading deposit. These fills included Contexts 153, 154, 155, 156, 160, 157, 158,
159, and 161, all of which appear as thin bands likely deposited as a series of contemporaneous fill
episodes. These fill sediments directly abutted the walls of Features 28 and 29, suggesting that those walls
were extant by the time the fills were laid down and were not cut into them after they were established. Both
Contexts 158 and 161 contained inclusion of burnt wood, possibly indicating these fills were laid down after
the Great Conflagration. Such inclusions would make sense if these fill deposits are leveling deposits
related to the redevelopment of the area after the fire. Underlying these banded fills are more substantial
fill deposits. Context 203, a compacted dark grayish-brown (10YR4/2) silty loam, was encountered at a
depth of 3.8–4.6 feet BGS beneath Context 161. This deposit contained a substantial quantity of butchered
mammal bone (n=34), shell (n=2), brick (n=1), colorless lead glass stemware baluster (n=1), white salt-
glazed stoneware (n=1), redware (n=3), slip-decorated redware (n=4), and two fragments of wood, one of
which might be a tool handle or treenail. Context 203 was cut by what appears to be a builder’s trench on
the north side of the Feature 28 wall. The fact that Context 203 was cut to build part of the Feature 28 wall
suggests that it was an established surface at the time the building was built. Underlying Context 203 was
a black (10YR2/1) silty loam with substantial inclusions of decaying organic matter deposit. This deposit,
Context 204, extended to a depth of about 5 feet BGS, around the depth that the water table was reached
in this area. While the Context 204 deposit was likely the result of decaying wood, given its high organic
content, the material was too decayed to make out its parent material. The final deposit excavated in the
central portion of the trench was Context 205, a dark gray (10YR4/1) silty sand with inclusions of rounded
gravels. This deposit was encountered at a depth of just over 5 feet and continued to the base of excavation

5.30
around 7.2 feet BGS. This deposit produced a substantial quantity of red clay roofing tile fragments. The
red clay roofing tile fragments appear to have been used as a component of the fill for a wharfing-out
episode. Over 220 fragments were recovered for study, but almost half of the matrix of Context 205 was
comprised of this material. Only three other artifacts were recovered from this deposit, all redwares with no
diagnostic features. Context 205 may be temporally contemporaneous with Context 195 on the north side
of the Feature 29 wall.
The stratigraphy in Trench 5 south of Feature 27 contained a series of banded fills beneath the Context
104 grading deposit. These fills included Contexts 141, 143, 145, 215, and 216, which appear as thin bands
likely deposited as a series of contemporaneous fill episodes. One of these fill deposits, Context 145, was
sampled and produced a number of artifacts, including nails (n=3), bone (n=2), shell (n=2), window glass
(n=4), a pipe stem (n=1), yellowware (n=1), white granite (n=10), Victorian Majolica (n=1), and hard-paste
porcelain (n=1), as well as terra-cotta sewer pipe. This material all points to a fill deposit dating to the
second half of the nineteenth century or later, as the layer has a TPQ of 1850 and a percent contribution
peak range of 1850–1900. As this is one of the deeper deposits of the banded fills, it would follow that the
overlying fills must be contemporaneous or not more recent than Context 145.
Underlying Context 145, the depositional sequence becomes more robust and regular, beginning with a
dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/6) silty sand (Context 217, which caps a dark gray (10YR4/1) and finally a
very dark gray (10YR3/1) sand. All these deposits were mechanically excavated, and the profile was
established visually from the top of the trench, as the depth and inundation of the trench made closer
examination unsafe. It was determined via this mechanical excavation that Feature 27 and 28 sat atop large
flagstone spread footers like those encountered in Trench 3. These boulders were encountered at a depth
of about 5.5 feet BGS. It appears that Features 27 and 28 sat directly atop of these boulders, so they likely
functioned as a spread footer. The boulders appeared to be set into the Context 219 and possibly overlying
218 matrices, deposits of dark gray and very dark gray sands that may be a context related to the Context
205 deposit observed in the central portion of the trench. Context 219 did not contain any inclusions of red
clay roof tile, which was indicative of Context 205, so while they might represent a contemporaneous land-
reclamation episode, they are not inherently the same context. No wharf timbers were encountered in this
southern portion of the trench, which was somewhat surprising, given that the grillage timbers found by
John Milner Associates in 2012 would have been in alignment with this section of Trench 5.

5.31
Figure 5.7. Trench 5, southern half, plan view and west wall profile.

5.32
Figure 5.8. Trench 5, northern half, plan view and west wall profile.

5.33

Feature 25/Context 136 was a modern concrete pillar that was only partially exposed in the southeast
quarter of Trench 5. It was documented in plan view and profile drawings and has been photographed. The
construction of this concrete pad capped a 3-foot-long segment of hollow-looking wood, Feature 26/Context
180, and cut into a stone wall, Feature 27/Context 162.

Feature 26 was originally thought to be a 3-foot section of a wooden pipe, as upon discovery, the end of
the wood exhibited an apparent hole. This feature was impacted and partially capped by the footer for a
concrete pillar (Feature 25/Context 136) associated with the Hertz occupation. Upon further inspection, this
feature proved to be only a segment of a truncated telephone pole that was thrown in as backfill when a
concrete slab footing, Feature 25, was poured.

Feature 27/Context 162 was a stone and mortar foundation located at the southern end of Trench 5.
Spatially, this feature lines up with the Feature 2 wall found by John Milner Associates in the middle of their
Trench 2 excavation (John Milner Associates, Inc. 2013, 24, 26). Both the Feature 2 wall from 2012 and
Feature 27 from the current effort appear to be part of the same foundation, as they were encountered at
approximately the same depth, were constructed in the same manner, and are in alignment with one
another. Feature 27 runs parallel to Feature 28, which seems to be a continuation of the Feature 3 wall
found in 2012. The distance between Feature 27 and Feature 28 to the north is about 1.5 feet. After it had
been mapped, measured, and photographed, the exposed section of the Feature 27 wall was mechanically
removed in order to see if wharf structure might be encountered underneath. Upon its removal, it was found
that the Feature 28 wall and the adjacent Feature 27 wall sat atop large flagstone spread footers, a form of
construction similar to the one employed for Feature 19 in Trench 3. The 2012 excavations noted a wider
stone wall beneath their Feature 2 wall in their Trench 2 and attributed it to an earlier construction (John
Milner Associates, Inc. 2013, 28). The results of the current excavations indicate that this deeper “wall”
made of larger stones does not represent an earlier construction but is part of a spread footer supporting
the upper wall that was built at the same time. About 1.7 feet of the upper section of wall was exposed
during excavation prior to encountering the spread footer.

Feature 28/Context 163 was a stone and mortar foundation with the footer (Context 171) exposed on the
north side, the exterior side of the wall. Spatially, this feature lines up with the Feature 3 wall found by John
Milner Associates in the middle of their Trench 2 excavation (John Milner Associates, Inc. 2013, 24, 26).
Both features were encountered at a similar depth and exhibit a similar construction, so they likely represent
a continuation of the same feature. The southern portion of this wall ran parallel to Feature 27, which was
less than 1.5 feet to the south. During excavation, a section of this wall was mechanically removed to see
what might lie beneath. Upon its removal, it was found that the Feature 28 wall and the adjacent Feature
27 wall sat atop large flagstone spread footers, a form of construction similar to the one employed for
Feature 19 in Trench 3. The 2012 excavations noted a wider stone wall beneath their Feature 3 wall in their
Trench 2 and attributed it to an earlier construction. The current excavations have found that this deeper
“wall” made of larger stones represents a spread footer supporting the upper wall and therefore both
sections of the wall are of contemporaneous construction.

5.34

Feature 29/Context 172 was a wall made of
brick, stone, and mortar (Photo 5.25). On the
west profile, Context 172 was smeared to the
north and the mortar extends farther in the
profile than it likely did while the wall was
intact. It is likely that the wall was associated
with Feature 32/Context 182—a layer of
wooden boards utilized as a living surface.
Spatially, this feature lines up with the Feature
4 wall found by John Milner Associates in the
northern end of their Trench 2 excavation
(John Milner Associates, Inc. 2013, 24, 26).
Both features were encountered at a similar
depth and exhibit a similar construction, so
they likely represent a continuation of the
same feature.
Photo 5.25. Feature 30 post (left); Feature 29 wall (right).
Feature 30/Context 181 was a wooden post that appears to be “driven” into the underlying matrix, as it has
no associated posthole (Photo 5.25). It was 3 feet south of wall Feature 29 and probably associated with
that structure—possibly a post for a “lean-to” off the exterior of a building. Future machine excavations may
reveal other associated posts that allow its function to be confirmed.

Feature 32/Context 182 was a collection of
yellow pine floor boards running across part of
the northern section of Trench 5 (Photo 5.26).
It is likely Feature 32 was utilized as a living or
working surface on the interior of a building.
While the southern end of this floor surface
was partially truncated by mechanical
excavation during the current effort, it was
determined from the profile that the Feature 32
floor had extended all the way south to the
Feature 29 wall. It therefore appears that
Feature 32 was the interior floor of the
structure that had Feature 29 as its south wall.
The northwestern portion of the Feature 32
floor had been previously disturbed by the
excavation of a builder’s trench for a mid-
twentieth-century concrete footer recorded as Photo 5.26. A view of the north end of Trench 5 showing the
part of Feature 38. Examination of the east Feature 32 floor surface in situ.
wall of the trench suggests that prior to this
modern disturbance, this floor surface continued at least as far north as Feature 38, if not farther.

Feature 38 was a possible remnant of a mortared stone wall at the northern end of Trench 5, a location that
had been substantially impacted by the installation of a twentieth-century concrete footer. This collection of
mortared stone is potentially the northern edge of the foundation to a one-story masonry building depicted
on the 1858–1859 Hexamer map. This structure has no address, but sat to the north of 307 Water Street
and was replaced by the Delaware Avenue Market Company of Philadelphia building after 1873 (Hexamer

5.35
& Locher 1859, Deeds, Deed between Edward Browning and the Delaware Ave. Market Company of
Philadelphia 1873). The south side and west side of the feature is made of concrete, which still has its
vertical sheet of plywood, a remnant wooden form, used when the modern pier footing was installed during
the building of the Hertz maintenance facility. This modern concrete pier footer essentially replaces the
stone portion of the original wall, leaving on a small bit of articulated stone and mortar structure along the
east wall of the trench. Feature 38 is located within the twentieth-century builder’s trench cut, which was
subsequently infilled by Contexts 194 and 195. At one point, a wooden floor associated with this structure
sat to the south, suggesting that to the south of this wall may have been the building’s interior.

Feature 39 was a hand-hewn wooden beam
running east-west across Trench 5 (Photo
5.27). This hewn timber had been partially
truncated along its western edge by a cut
created to install the concrete portion of
Feature 38 during the construction of the Hertz
maintenance facility. Test Unit 3 was dug along
the south side of Feature 39 and revealed that
Feature 39 was a single timber set into the
Context 195 fill and was not directly stacked or
attached to another timber. The matrix of fill
sediment containing the Feature 39 timber was
Context 195, a gray (10YR51/) sand that
included numerous pieces of woodworking
debris (ax-chip cuts) and decayed wood pulp.
Underlying this timber were two additional
timbers running more or less perpendicular to
the orientation of Feature 39. These deeper
pieces of structural wood, Contexts 221 and Photo 5.27. Feature 39 timber in Trench 5.
224, were suspended in the same Context 195
fill matrix, suggesting they were installed at the same time as Feature 39 (Figure 5.9). This lattice of
overlapping runs of timbers are potentially representative of a grillage wharf structure similar to the one
identified by John Milner Associates in their Trench 2, located just to the west. Water inundation prevented
a deeper investigation of the timbers, but given the dredge spoil material of the surrounding Context 195 fill
and the overlapping alignment of the timbers observed in the trench, it is likely that Feature 39 is part of a
grillage wharf system designed to reclaim land from the Delaware River.

5.36
Figure 5.9. Plan view of the closing extent of the north end of Trench 5.

Feature 41 was noted during mechanical trench excavation. This fill layer was associated with the infilling
of a historic post once it was removed. The post may have been associated with structural wall Feature 29.
This stain was noted in the east profile wall of Trench 5 during machine excavation. A profile drawing of this
wall was not created, but it was photo-documented. This feature was added to the plan view drawing.

Feature 43 describes one of the decaying hewing chip cuts found in the Context 195 fill matrix in the
northern end of Trench 5, between Features 39 (timber) and Feature 38 (a stone and mortar wall). Feature
43/Context 213 was not really a feature, but rather a larger than average piece of woodworking debris
resulting from the hewing of logs. It was initially thought to be part of another timber similar to Feature 39,
but upon investigation was determined to be only about a foot in length, round on the back, and ax cut at
each end of the grain. It was determined that this was representative of a chip cut or squaring cut, in which
sections of a log are notched with an ax at intervals along the length of a potential beam, and then a hewing
ax is used to cut off those areas in small sections, creating a flat face on the edge of a timber. Examination
of the wood retrieved from this context revealed that the wood in question was white oak, not the yellow
pine found in the overlying floor levels. The inclusion of this context within the Context 195 matrix, a fill laid
down during the creation of a wharf, suggests that this hewing off-cut was deposited at the same time as
the wharf’s creation, and may be related to the shaping of timbers for a wharf structure, such as the adjacent
Feature 39.

5.37
6. Site Interpretation
The interpretation of the archaeological deposits encountered during this excavation relied on data from
previous investigations, as well as historical research. Interpreting the past and present archaeological
deposits within the Vine Street lot required thinking about those archaeological deposits as the physical
traces of the historical events that shaped the development of the waterfront. As more historic research
was undertaken and more of the site has been archaeologically investigated, our ability to interpret the past
and present archaeological findings improves. Establishing a correlation between historical events and
archaeological deposits is key to establishing a chronology for the site. Determining how historic events
manifest archaeologically (site formations processes) means accounting for how historic and modern
grading, demolition, building, cutting, and infilling affect the survival of historic landscapes. By unpicking
these site formation processes, we can establish what we have found and increase our understanding of
the development of this site.
Previous reporting efforts focusing on the archaeology of the Hertz lot and West Shipyard lot have
demonstrated that twentieth-century grading related to the creation of the railyard, and then its subsequent
removal to create the Hertz parking lot, severely truncated the deposition in the area (Weber and Yamin
1988/2006, John Milner Associates, Inc. 2013). All excavations conducted on the site to date have found
no real trace of any railroad-related deposits on the site. The absence of such deposits confirms the
interpretation that when the Hertz lot parking lot was established, a substantial bulk of fill sediment was
removed. The height disparity between the extant portion of Water Street and the grade of the parking lot
surface, about 5 feet, was a testament to this truncation. This truncation has been previously suggested to
have extended down to a level associated with the late-nineteenth-century occupation of the project area,
as the stone walls encountered during previous excavations were interpreted as relating to this later period
(John Milner Associates, Inc. 2013). The current excavations seem to suggest that much of the built
environment observed archaeologically may, in fact, be representative of the period predating 1850,
including the foundations observed in previous excavations. If this interpretation remains valid, then the
later nineteenth-century landscape was also graded away during the railyard and Hertz lot occupations of
the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, leaving only earlier material behind. Support for this
interpretation comes in many forms, but chief among them was the lack of artifacts dating to the late
nineteenth century or early twentieth century across the site. During the 2012 excavations, the artifacts
found in the deposits associated with foundations were all late eighteenth to early nineteenth century in
date, with yellowware ceramic being the latest dated material with a manufacturing date of 1828–1930.
Based on the artifacts alone, such deposits appear to be at the latest mid-nineteenth century in origin, not
late nineteenth. This absence of late-nineteenth-century material was difficult to explain, if indeed the built
environment observed in both the past and present excavations were correlative to the late-nineteenth-
century occupations of the site. However, if such structural remains were interpreted as relating to an earlier
period, and the late-nineteenth-century occupations were interpreted as having been graded away, then
this observation largely resolves.
Past interpretations of the site and its structural remains have relied heavily on historic mapping to provide
indications of association for encountered structures. Unfortunately, most historic mapping for the project
area does not become sufficiently detailed until 1858, when the Hexamer map series was drafted. While
some of the observed walls do spatially correlate with the anticipated locations of structures from the late
nineteenth century, this correlation was more an artifact of the persistence of property boundaries through
the ages rather than a one-to-one correlation between buildings and walls and these later structures. Many
walls found in the southwest of the lot during the 2012 excavations were interpreted as being internal
subdivisions related to the consolidation of the late-nineteenth-century apartment block (John Milner
Associates, Inc. 2013). Additionally, those walls were thought to sit atop more deeply buried walls related
to an earlier period. This interpretation seemingly overlooks the importance of the floor surfaces
encountered during excavation and those areas wherein floor was absent (unlikely if it was part of one
whole building). If the late-nineteenth-century interpretation model is set aside and the findings are
reinterpreted considering an earlier landscape, such as the early-nineteenth-century plan drawn by
Abraham Ritter in his book Philadelphia and Her Merchants, then these gaps begin to make sense. The

6.1
gaps between Features 3 and 4 in Trench 2 of the 2012 excavations were mirrored by walls in Trench 5 of
the current excavation. The floor was found to the north and south of these walls, but the space between
has no evidence for flooring. While this spacing was uncharacteristic of a late-nineteenth-century apartment
building, it corresponds admirably with a wall shown on the Ritter map depicting the early nineteenth century
(Ritter 1860, 34). The mapping of historic deed boundaries on the West lot during the second half of the
eighteenth century shows that James West Sr. established an alley between the pieces of land granted in
his will to his two sons James and Charles (J. West 1761). This alley seems to have remained a fixture of
the landscape for most of the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century, as it is reflected in several early-
nineteenth-century maps (Hills 1796, Ritter 1860, Tanner 1837). Based on the measurements given in these
documents, the correlating 16-foot-wide alley corresponds closely with the gap between Features 3 and 4
in Trench 2 of the 2012 excavation and Features 28 and 29 of the current excavations in Trench 5. Given
this correlation, the absence of flooring, and the presence of walls, it is likely that the structural remains
encountered in Trench 5 and Trench 2 of the previous excavation are representative of the late-eighteenth-
to early-nineteenth-century mercantile landscape of the West family (Figure 6.1).
Figure 6.1. Overlay of circa- 1800 map of waterfront showing the correspondence of walls with the edge of alley on the
West lot (left).
The interpretation that the observed walls were sitting atop earlier and wider early-nineteenth-century walls
can similarly be refined. While evidence from the 2012 investigation and the current undertaking does
indeed show stone walls sitting atop larger walls and flagstone structures, this does not inherently indicate
multiple rebuilding episodes (John Milner Associates, Inc. 2013). The fact that these observed lower “walls”
were substantially wider than the upper portions suggests that they were not walls, but rather step or spread
footers for walls. Such footers were used to support the weight of structures built in unconsolidated material,
by more evenly distributing the weight of the wall over a greater surface area and thus reducing subsidence.
The use of this building practice within the project area, a landscape made entirely of unconsolidated fill,
was therefore wholly appropriate. Under this interpretation, both the upper wall and footer were all part of
the same temporally contemporaneous building system. Since these footers were dated by builder’s
trenches to the early nineteenth century, the upper portions of those walls can also be temporally associated
with that general date range (John Milner Associates, Inc. 2013).

6.2
If this interpretation of current and past archaeological data holds true, then one question remains: Why
does there appear to be a stratigraphic division between the early- to mid-nineteenth-century deposits and
the largely absent late-nineteenth-century deposit, such that the latter could be wholly graded away while
the former remain intact and undisturbed? The answer to this question may lie in the defining events of July
9, 1850, the day of the Great Conflagration, which saw the project area and much of the surrounding
neighborhood reduced to cinder.
Taking the fire into account has profound effects on the archaeological interpretation of the current project
area and its subsequent development in the later nineteenth century. The contention posited here is that
what principally survives beneath the current ground surface are remnants of a landscape that was
deposited around 1850, having been destroyed in the fire, and subsequently covered over with debris and
fill before late-nineteenth century structures were built. In the later development of the waterfront, the
marketplace and apartment blocks were therefore built on and into fill sediments that postdate the 1850
fire. The filling and grading of the waterfront after the fire thereby established a stratigraphic break in the
deposition that put vertical distance between these two temporal periods, such that subsequent grading
could carry away the later deposits and leave no impact on the earlier landscape. Support for this contention
was found in a pervasive deposit of brick and mortar demolition rubble capping most of the encountered
foundation walls and floors. Almost every structure with a floor encountered had a cap of disarticulated brick
and mortar in an approximately 1-foot lens over the entire structure. These deposits were further capped
by additional deposits of demolition rubble mixed with sands, wood, and other material. While this was not
atypical of urban fill, it was also possible that this represents a cap created by the demolition and preparation
of the waterfront for rebuilding in the wake of the 1850 fire. If this was indeed the case, then it suggests that
such a demolition level may be a reasonable indicator of time period within the stratigraphic profile. There
were several instances stratigraphically where deposits of what appear to be burn lenses or burnt wood
inclusions occur beneath these demolition fills (2012 - Trench 2, Context 15, Context 123, Context 158, and
Context 161).
Other deposits of fill beneath the brick fill deposit may provide further insight into the activities of the
surrounding neighborhood in the period prior to the fire. A prime example was Context 197 in Trench 4 of
the current excavation, a deposit of heavily organic material riddled with larger concentrations of domestic
ceramic from the late eighteenth to the early nineteenth century. This deposit both capped and abutted a
remnant foundation of a stone structure with a brick porch, and there was no evidence of a builder’s trench,
suggesting that the structure was covered over by this material. The Context 197 deposit was highly curious,
as it contained so many large sherds of domestic ceramic that was difficult to account for in an environment
that was principally commercial. However, if we consider this deposit as imported fill associated with locally
demolished buildings deposited as leveling fill for the rebuilding of the waterfront, then the origin of such
domestic material can be seen as having been derived from the debris of the burned domestic properties
of Water and Front Street to the west.
This interpretation also accounts for the presence of logs and timberwork, as well as riverbank deposits
associated with the earliest wharfing episodes in the first half of the eighteenth century. In Trenches 1, 3,
and 5 of the current effort and Trench 2 of the 2012 effort, large hand-hewn timbers were located and were
interpreted as belonging to early wharfing episodes. In the northern end of Trench 5 timbers akin to the
Feature 6 grillage wharf structure found by John Milner Associates in 2012 were located. These additional
timbers—like Feature 39, Context 221, and Context 224—suggest the survival of a large and intact grillage
wharf structure in the southern half of the Vine Street lot. The presence of a deposit of woodworking debris
similar to the 2012 Feature 7 deposit was similarly found in Trench 1 of the current effort (Feature 3/Context
9). All this material was more or less directly overlain by deposits related to stone foundations. If 150 years
or more of waterfront development occurred between the deposition of these early shipbuilding and wharf
construction deposits, more substantial fill deposition and builder’s trench cuts related to the construction
of the late-nineteenth-century walls would be expected. Instead, we see only shallow cuts, if any. In some
locations, like the footer for a wall in Trench 3, the larger footer stones for the building sat atop wooden
piles driven into this early matrix and the stones sat directly atop this early riverbank deposit. The physical
relationship between these deposits was suggestive of a more direct temporal relationship.
The nature of the evidence for shipbuilding on the site was largely predicated on historical documentation
and the pervasive presence of woodworking debris. In Trenches 1 and 3 of the current effort and Trench 2

6.3
of the 2012 excavations, this woodworking debris layer was found at an average depth of 6 feet BGS and
typically capped a natural Trenton gravels deposit. As far as evidence of shipbuilding in the early period is
concerned, such woodworking debris may be as robust as the evidence for that activity ever gets.
Shipbuilding in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth century, especially mercantile shipping, was
generally more focused on smaller craft of fewer than 100 tons. The requirements for building a vessel of
that size were remarkably simple, requiring in general a stable bank of less than 15° slope at a point in the
river where the water slows and becomes less fast flowing. The actual structure required to build a ship
was remarkably ephemeral, needing only a clear space to layout a keel and several posts to hold it in place
as the vessel takes shape. The material remains of this action then were apt to be little more than a few
postholes or support timbers sunk into the mud of the riverbank. While the aforementioned posts and
supports do likely survive, their full meaning will require a much larger window to identify the patterning of
the post and supports sufficient to understanding how shipbuilding was undertaken in this area.
Examination of a 1754 view of the Delaware River waterfront shows a great number of vessels under
construction along the bank of the river, many of them within the northern portion of the current Vine Street
lot. However, apart from one vessel (a small vessel that appears to be related to the Britton yard south of
Vine), all the other ships under construction were shown on the bare riverbank in cleared areas amongst
the reeds (Heap, Scull and Jefferys 1754) (see Figure 3.2 in Chapter 3 above). This lack of established
infrastructure suggests that perhaps the layer of woodworking debris encountered in the westernmost test
areas during the current and 2012 excavations might be the most tangible evidence of the shipbuilding
activity that can reasonably be expected, given the scale of current testing. Historical documents and deed
research indicate that the shipbuilding industry had all but faded from the project area by the third quarter
of the eighteenth century, with the waterfront being developed for more mercantile endeavors. Shipbuilding,
an activity better suited to the fringes of the city, moved northward in Northern Liberties.
This interpretation of the ephemeral nature of colonial shipbuilding does raise questions about the
remarkably well-preserved slipway uncovered during the 1987 excavations of Carmen Weber. Based on
artifact dates, Weber has ascribed the creation of the slipway to a merchant named Thomas Leiper, who
took ownership of the property in 1810, a period well after the heyday of shipbuilding within the project area
(Weber and Yamin 1988/2006, Deeds, Deed between the Bank of Pennsylvania and Thomas Leiper 1810).
The datable material related to the construction of the slipway feature spans the late eighteenth to early
nineteenth century, with the ceramic assemblage being principally comprised of of pearlwares. Apart from
the pearlwares and creamwares, which have manufacturing dates into the early nineteenth century, the
remaining material is comprised of white salt-glazed stoneware, tin-glazed earthenware, and Chinese
export porcelain, which were most common in the second half of the eighteenth century. Weber suggests
that the wooden tracks found in the slipway are sufficiently similar to a terrestrial railway established by Mr.
Leiper to lend credence to him being the originator of the feature. The only problem is that by the time
Leiper took over the property in 1810, the shipbuilding trades had abandoned this area of the city, and it
was firmly a mercantile area, with Mr. Leiper himself being a merchant. The last shipwright to occupy the
Langston lot, where the slipway was found, was Christopher Smith, who had stopped building ships there
by 1784. There is little indication that after this time the ground was used for anything other than mercantile
trade, so the creation of a slipway for ship construction or repair would have been an unnecessary and
expensive investment for any of the subsequent owners like Isaac Hazlehurst or Thomas Leiper, who were
merchants and had no vested interest in shipbuilding. Furthermore, there is no documentary evidence to
suggest that either a shipwright or a shipyard were in operation in this area during the early nineteenth
century. A more plausible explanation is that the slipway was built by Christopher Smith or the Lynn family
in mid-to-late eighteenth century and was subsequently abandoned and infilled in the early nineteenth
century during the tenure of Isaac Hazlehurst and Thomas Leiper.
Given the significance and integrity of the slipway structure encountered in 1987, all of the slipway timbers
were left in place and no excavation was undertaken beneath its structure. The material used to establish
the date for the construction of the slipway came from deposits within Excavation Register (ER) 13 and ER
14 in Test Trench 1 of the 1987 excavation, principally from Level C. According to profiles in ER 14, the
Level C deposit sat atop of the Feature 24 and Feature 23 wooden rails for the slipway (Weber and Yamin
1988/2006, 23). No cultural material is reported for levels E–G, which were the fills located between the
aforementioned wooden rail features. All of the fills between and above these wooden tracks, including
Level C, necessarily postdates its construction as it could not have been established while it was still in

6.4
use. While levels E-G might predate the construction of the slipway no datable material was recovered from
those deposits and since there are no evident builder’s trenches in cut into those deposits it is more likely
that the Feature 23-24 rails were installed and then the area between infilled. As the material used to date
the slipway’s construction came from deposits excavated from the bottom and interior of the slipway it
therefore must post-date its construction. Such deposits do not date the construction of the slipway, but
rather its abandonment. The only thing that is therefore certain about the construction of the slipway is that
it predates the early nineteenth century, as the fills on its interior related to the abandonment infilling date
to that time. This new interpretation of the data related to the slipway pushes it construction back into the
eighteenth century during the time of the shipwrights of the Lynn family and later Christopher Smith, helping
to resolve the difficulty trying to associate the slipway with the merchant Thomas Leiper in the early
nineteenth century who had no real connection to shipbuilding. The archaeological evidence for a late-
eighteenth-century to early-nineteenth-century abandonment and infilling of the slipway seems to hold with
the known property history for the Langston lot, with shipbuilding on the site ending in the mid-1780s and
the area being subsequently taken over for mercantile activities.

6.5
7. Summary and Recommendations

Summary
All the available evidence from excavations performed within the Vine Street lot seems to suggest that
beneath the surface of the parking lot, the historic waterfront from the late seventeenth century to 1850
remains intact and well preserved. Investigations of possible modern disturbance associated with the Hertz
occupation revealed that more recent activities have likely only disturbed archaeological deposits in a few
discrete locations, the most notable being the site of a former fuel tank encountered in Trench 3. Based on
the results of the current excavation, it appears that disturbance is the exception, not the rule. Even in areas
like the footprint of the Hertz maintenance facility, which was tested via Trenches 4 and 5, potentially
significant and intact archaeological deposits were encountered. Some of this high degree of preservation
may be the result of the destruction of this section of the waterfront in 1850, the subsequent redevelopment
effort essentially burying the earlier landscape under fill and preserving it from the impact of later
disturbance. The fact that evidence of earlier waterfront usage for shipbuilding and wharf expansion has
been found beneath and between these late-eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century structures is a good
indicator that deposits related to the earlier seventeenth- and early-eighteenth-century periods will continue
to be found intact, as well.
While the current archaeological findings suggest the potential for continued discovery of intact
archaeological deposits, the interpretation of such material in relation to the historical record has the
potential to be more complicated. The impact of the Great Conflagration on the project area means that we
cannot assume that landmarks and structures depicted in late-nineteenth-century maps were reflective of
the vestiges of the earlier landscape, as that earlier landscape was destroyed and rebuilt before more
detailed maps were created. Because such available maps cannot be relied upon, archaeological data
becomes ever more important to comprehending the spatial layout of the waterfront around the project
area.
While the site is already listed on the NRHP, the recent reinterpretation of the available data suggests that
the periods of significance for this area may extend up until the mid-nineteenth century, not just being
confined to the earliest years of occupation in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries.
The Durst Organization’s proposed development of the southern end of the Vine Street lot has the potential
to impact the surviving cultural deposits. In light of this, the archaeological data recovery has been planned
as a mitigation to any adverse effects caused by their proposed construction. The presence and
preservation of known significant cultural deposits and features, like the slipway revealed by Weber in 1987,
are being considered as factors in the planning of the development within the Vine Street Lot. While project
designs remain in the early stages of development, the desire to preserve significant archaeological
features like the slipway in situ, have helped direct development plans concentrating them more to the
southern half of the lot. While such avoidance is ideal and will serve to protect a great wealth of
archaeological remains in the northern half of the lot, development in the southern half of the lot has the
potential to adversely impact archaeological deposits in which the current effort has demonstrated are apt
to be equally significant. If future development activities will be localized in the southern half of the lot, and
resources in that area cannot be avoided, an archaeological data recovery will be undertaken to capture
the information contained within the portion of the site that will be adversely affected during construction.
Recommendations
Previous archaeological efforts interpreting the Hertz Lot/West Shipyard Site have broken down
recommendations for further work based on the temporal association of the features and deposits
encountered. John Milner Associates has previously suggested four such temporal periods: post apartment
block, apartment block, mid-eighteenth-century to mid-nineteenth-century post-wharf construction and
occupation, and the James and Charles West period (late-seventeenth- to early-eighteenth-century)

7.1
occupations. In general, AECOM concurs with these temporal classifications, but as the scope for the due
diligence testing area extends beyond the West lot and covers the bulk of a city block, the aforementioned
temporal classifications require some adjustment. AECOM proposes not four by five such temporal periods:
Early Waterfront Development and Shipbuilding (1680 to 1780), Mercantile Period (1780–1850), Post-fire
Redevelopment Period (1850–1870), Late-nineteenth-century Commercial Period (1870–1895), and the
Modern Period (twentieth century Railroad and Hertz occupations).
Modern Period
As stated in the John Milner Associates report, the archaeological deposits related to the turn of the century
railroad occupation and subsequent late-twentieth-century Hertz Rent-a-Car occupation do not have
archaeological significance. While remains of the Hertz facility were found in Trenches, 2, 4, and 5, such
remains were purely structural, comprised of reinforced concrete slab and footers for the main Hertz
building and its support structures. The northern end of Trench 3 was highly disturbed as a result of a buried
tank installed as part of this occupation. As all this material is relatively modern, and well documented via
photography and aerial imagery, further documentation of this period of the site’s use is not warranted.
Documentation of the railroad-related usage of the site is also not significant, given the limited
archaeological potential for understanding the site and, more importantly, the site-wide lack of any deposits
related to this occupation. No cultural deposits were encountered that could be clearly related to this late-
nineteenth- to early-twentieth-century usage of the site; it seems to have been graded away in preparation
for the construction of the Hertz lot.
Late-Nineteenth-Century Commercial Period

As per the recommendation of John Milner Associates, deposits related to the late-nineteenth-century
occupation of the site are also deemed not significant (John Milner Associates, Inc. 2013, 39-40). The late-
nineteenth-century development of the Vine Street lot saw a substantial increase in the quantity of domestic
and small commercial dwellings occupying the northern portion of the project area, a location that had for
much of the first three quarters of the nineteenth century been occupied by lumber and coal yards. The
southern portion of the lot saw the creation of a large market building in formerly largely open areas, as
well. Documentary research has shown that the bulk of the structures dubbed late-nineteenth-century
apartment blocks were in fact built as part of the post-fire reestablishment of mercantile warehouses and
counting houses along the newly built Delaware Avenue. Archaeological remains of this later commercial
and domestic occupation period have thus far shown to be largely elusive. In the northern portion of the
parking lot, in Trench 1 and 2, no evidence of the late-nineteenth-century occupations or dwellings was
encountered in the current excavations, nor were such structures encountered during the 1987 excavations
(Weber and Yamin 1988/2006). Here, too, it seems like most of the cultural deposits related to this period
were graded away, either as part of the preparation for the railroad or as part of the grading that removed
the railroad deposits in order to create the Hertz facility. While such deposits are thus largely absent and
therefore not significant, should features related to this period manifest, they could be given a cursory
examination and documentation and then be removed, as they do not contribute substantially to the
understanding of the site, and numerous examples of archaeological sites from this time have been
examined in the surrounding area (AECOM Burlington 2014).
Post-Great Conflagration Waterfront Redevelopment Period

Archaeological deposits related to the period after the Great Conflagration in 1850 were potentially
encountered in several trenches during the current excavation effort. Foundation walls found in Trenches,
2, 3, and 4 might well relate to structures depicted on 1858–1859 Hexamer maps of Ward 11 (Hexamer &
Locher 1859). Such structural features are related to a period wherein the landscape of the block, and much
of the eastern part of Northern Liberties, was remade—and when Delaware Avenue was first established
in this area. Examination of these structural features is important to understanding whether portions of the
pre-fire landscape were incorporated into the new layout, or whether, as it seems to appear, the landscape
of the area was wholly transformed from a landscape dotted by smaller warehouses and shops crisscrossed
by alleys, all leading to an informal track along the water, to a formalized block with Delaware Avenue as
its eastern boundary—formally establishing the waterfront as separate from the water lots along Water

7.2
Street. AECOM recommends that foundations and deposits related to this period be fully documented and
mapped prior to their removal, as they are representative of the birth of the modern landscape and layout
of the waterfront. Detailed insurance records and documentary evidence about the reconstruction of these
structures in 1850/1851 shows that they continued to serve a mercantile function even after the fire, and
thus can provide valuable insight into the change and or continuity of activities of the mid-nineteenth-century
riverfront economy.
Potential Research Questions

• What, if any, deposits can be conclusively related to the aftermath of the Great Conflagration and
how do they manifest archaeologically? Is such evidence seen across the site or only in discrete
locations?
• How did the changes to the Vine Street lot after the Great Conflagration, such as the creation of
Delaware Avenue, impact the redevelopment of the Vine Street lot in the mid-nineteenth century?
• Without direct access to the waterfront, how did the use and layout of the mercantile landscape
evolve? As the wharf-related activities moved east toward the river on the other side of Delaware
Avenue, did tradesmen and craftsmen migrate or did they maintain a presence within the newly
rebuilt landscape?
Early Mercantile Period

The early mercantile period corresponds broadly with the mid-eighteenth- to mid-nineteenth-century post-
wharf construction and occupation category put forth by John Milner Associates (John Milner Associates,
Inc. 2013, 40). John Milner Associates recommended that features and deposits relating to this period could
have archaeological significance. AECOM identified numerous structural features related to this time
period, including Features 42 and 44 in Trench 4 and Features 28 and 29 in Trench 5. In light of the evidence
of the Great Conflagration, which marks the end of this temporal period, AECOM has also suggested that
several of the features identified in Trench 2 by John Milner Associates in 2012, and corresponding features
found by AECOM during the current excavation effort, are in fact related to this earlier pre–Great
Conflagration landscape and are not indicative of a later apartment block landscape, as previously
proposed. The high degree of preservation of deposits from this period and the demolition layer from the
fire providing a distinct temporal marker in the site stratigraphy suggest that a little-documented and poorly
understood archaeological landscape related to the development and growth of the waterfront during the
late colonial period, the American Revolution, and Federalist period survive here. As many of these
structures and deposits, like Features 42 and 44 in Trench 4, are built upon wharves that were not built until
the mid-eighteenth to late eighteenth century, such deposits have a definitive TPQ and TAQ. As this entire
landscape was destroyed by fire and then apparently filled and rebuilt in a drastically different configuration,
archaeology is the only means by which to examine the state of the waterfront in the early days of the
nation. Deposits relating to this period are therefore highly significant and should be recorded in detail so
that a robust picture of this early waterfront landscape can be reconstructed. Given the depositional integrity
of such deposits, and their potential to provide great insight into the growth, development, and operation of
the colonial and early American waterfront, these deposits are eligible for inclusion on the NRHP under
Criterion D.

• How did the transition to mercantilism in the late eighteenth century change the physical landscape
of the Vine Street lot? What was the physical layout of the mercantile waterfront? How did merchants
use the landscape of the waterfront, and what was the role of warehouses and other structures
related to the wharves and waterfront?
• What role did the wharves play in mercantile commerce along the Delaware River? Were wharves
used only as a place to load and offload cargo, or were they also places of commerce and trade?
Were structures built upon the wharves and, if so, what were their functions? Does the physical
construction of observed wharf structures provide any indication of how they were used by
merchants?

7.3
• Are there any physical remains indicative of the trading activities that were carried out by merchants
who occupied the Vine Street lot, or did they deal principally in perishable materials that are not well
represented in the archaeological record? How did the Philadelphia merchants who occupied the
Vine Street lot fit within the greater framework of Atlantic World trade?
• Does any evidence of the tradesmen and waterfront industries that supported the merchants survive
in association with the mercantile landscape? If so, what industries are represented and how do they
manifest archaeologically? What was the role of these trades in supporting the mercantile economy
of late-eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century Philadelphia?
Early Waterfront Development and Shipbuilding

As stated by John Milner Associates, any deposits related to the early shipbuilding industry or early
construction of wharves along the Delaware River waterfront have a high archaeological significance (John
Milner Associates, Inc. 2013, 40-41). During the current excavations in Trench 5, a series of rough timbers
were found beneath historic foundations that appear to be related to the proposed early grillage wharf
observed by John Milner Associates in their Trench 2. Trenches 1 and 5 both produced layers of
woodworking debris associated with the hand-hewing of timbers, likely related to waterfront carpentry
activities like shipbuilding and cooperage. The presence of this intact evidence of the earliest usage of the
Delaware River waterfront and the origin of the wharfed-out shoreline, in combination with the previously
encountered evidence of a similar nature from the preceding two excavations, suggests that deposits
associated with this period not only survive but possess depositional integrity. The informational potential
of these archaeological deposits makes them highly significant and eligible for inclusion on the NRHP under
Criterion D. Study of such deposits can shed new light on the vernacular shipbuilding traditions of the late
seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries in the Delaware Valley, as well as the development of the
colonial waterfront.

• What are the tangible archaeological remains of the shipbuilding industry that occurred within the
Vine Street lot? Is the evidence of this industry particularly ephemeral, or do more robust indicators
of this activity, such as slipways, survive? If substantive evidence of shipbuilding survives, can the
archaeology be used to determine the scale of the shipbuilding effort, the techniques employed, or
the scale and type of the vessels constructed there? Can historic documents provide the names and
dimensions of historic vessels constructed by shipwrights and, if so, how would vessels of such
dimensions have been built or arranged in the landscape of the shipyard, given the archaeological
evidence? What might such an effort tell us about how shipbuilding in Philadelphia was undertaken?
• How does the evidence of shipbuilding found at the Vine Street lot relate to other contemporary
shipyards in the greater Atlantic World? Were the shipbuilding techniques and shipyard layouts used
in Philadelphia unique or did they follow a layout to other yards seen throughout the Atlantic World?
• How were the seventeenth-, eighteenth- and early-nineteenth-century wharves within the Vine Street
lot constructed? Did construction techniques show consistency based on the temporal period of
construction, suggesting a predictable chronology for wharf building techniques, or was there
substantial variability in construction techniques between properties owned by different landowners?
Was the difference, if any, in wharf construction technique an artefact of the function of the waterfront
improvement? Specifically, is there a notable difference between construction techniques for
wharves used for shipbuilding versus those later wharves used for mercantile actives? How does this
difference in use manifest in regard to the construction of the wharves themselves?
• How does the observed waterfront development chronology of this site compare to other
contemporary waterfront sites in Philadelphia, like the Meadows Site? How does the waterfront
development sequence for the site compare to temporally contemporaneous sites in other North
American cities? How can the similarities or differences be explained, if at all?

7.4

7.5
8. Works Cited
Acrelius, Israel. 1874. The History of New Sweden. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Historical Society of Pennsylvania.
AECOM Burlington. 2014. Digging I95. Accessed 10 31, 2019. http://diggingi95.com/.
Agriculture, United States Department of. 1975. Soil Survey of Bucks and Philadelphia Counties Pennsylvania.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Baist, George William. 1885. "Plan 20." Baist's Property Atlas of the City and County of Philadelphia, Penna., 1885.
Compiled by Athenaeum of Philadelphia. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: G. Wm. Baist, Surveyor and Map
Publisher. Accessed September 26, 2019. https://www.philageohistory.org/rdic-images/view-
image.cfm/BST1885.Phila.022.Plan20.
Becker, Marshall Joseph. 1989. "Lenape Population at the Time of European Contact: Estimating Native Numbers in
the Lower Delaware Valley." Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 133 (2): 112-122.
Becker, Marshall Joseph. 1985. The European Contact/Historic Period in the Lenape Realm of Pennsylvania
Piedmont and Coastal Plain. Vol. II, in A Comprehensive State Plan for the Conservation of Archaeological
Resources, edited by Paul Raber, 44-55. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum
Commission.
Berg, Edmund T. 1980. "Geologic Map of Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Geological Survey, 4th series." Map 1,.
Brooke, Robert, John Keen, and Casper Schneider. 1795. "Plan of part of the Northern Liberties on the south side of
Pegg's Run, survey'd & regulat'd agreeable to an Act of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, pass'd the 17th Day of April 1795." Philadelphia Streets Department, Survey and Designs
Bureau. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, April 17. Accessed September 26, 2019.
https://www.philageohistory.org/rdic-images/view-image.cfm/064-01_HP.
Brown, James A. 1971. "Approaches to the Social Dimensions of Mortuary Practices." Edited by James A. Brown.
Memoirs of the Society for American Archaeology 2.
Carlsson, Sten. 1995. "The New Sweden Colonists, 1638-1656: Their Geographical and Social Background." In New
Sweden in America, edited by Carol E. Hoffecker, Richard Waldron, Lorraine E. Williams and Barbara E.
Benson, 176-181. Newark, Delaware: University of Delaware Press.
Cleland, Charles E. 1966. "The Prehistoric Animal Ecology and Ethnozoology of the Upper Great Lakes Region."
Anthropological Papers, Museum of Anthropology, University of Michigan 29.
Cook, T. G. 1976. "Broadpoints: Culture, Phase, Horizon, Tradition, or Knife?" Journal of Anthropological Research
32: 337–357.
Cooper, Peter. 1720. "The South East Prospect of the City of Philadelphia." Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Library
Company of Philadelphia. Accessed October 21, 2019.
https://digital.librarycompany.org/islandora/object/digitool%3A38084.
Cotter, John L., Daniel G. Roberts, and Michael Parrington. 1993. he Buried Past, an Archaeological History of
Philadelphia. Philadelphia: A Barra Foundation Book, University Pennsylvania Press.
Craig, Peter Stebbins. 2001. "Chronology of Colonial Swedes on the Delaware." (The Swedish Colonial Society) 2
(5). Accessed August 1, 2019. http://colonialswedes.net/History/Chronology.html.
Custer, Jay F. 1984. Delaware Prehistoric Archeology, An Ecological Approach. Cranbury, New Jersey: Associated
University Presses.
Custer, Jay F. 1985. "Prehistoric Archeological Resources of Pennsylvania's Piedmont and Coastal Plain." In A
Comprehensive State Plan for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources, edited by Paul Raber, 25-41.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.
—. 1996. Prehistoric Cultures of Eastern Pennsylvania. Vol. Anthropological Series 7. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania:
Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.
—. 1996. Prehistoric Cultures of Eastern Pennsylvania. Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Historical and
Museum Commission, Anthropological Series No. 7.
—. 1989. Prehistoric Cultures of the Delmarva Peninsula: An Archaeological Study. Newark, Delaware: University of
Delaware Press.
Deeds, Book of. 1784. Deed between Christopher Smith and Isaac Hazlehurst. Vol. 12, in Philadelphia Book of
Deeds, 228-229. Philadelphia.
—. 1873. "Deed between Edward Browning and the Delaware Ave. Market Company of Philadelphia." Philadelphia
Book of Deeds. Vol. 37. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 381.

8.1
Deeds, Book of. 1759. Deed between Jacob Casdorf and Samuel Shoemaker. Vol. 11, in Philadelphia Book of
Deeds, 181. Philadelphia.
Deeds, Book of. 1791. Deed between John Penn, jr. and Joseph Cowperthwaite. Vol. 32, in Philadelphia Book of
Deeds, 203-206. Philadelphia.
Deeds, Book of. 1810. Deed between the Bank of Pennsylvania and Thomas Leiper. Vol. 11, in Philadelphia Book of
Deeds, 126. Philadelphia.
Deeds, Book of. 1791. Deed between William Taylor (deceased) and Jacob Clements and Bankson Taylor. Vol. 67, in
Philadelphia Book of Deeds, 200-201. Philadelphia.
Dent, Richard J. 1991. "Archaeology in the Upper Delaware Valley: The Earliest Populations." In In The People of
Minisink: Papers from the 1989 Delaware Water Gap Symposium, edited by David G. Orr and Douglas V.
Campana, 117-143. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: National Park Service, Mid-Atlantic Region.
Dent, Richard J., and Barbara E. Kauffman. 1985. "Aboriginal Subsistence and Site Ecology as Interpreted from
Microfloral and Faunal Remains." In Shawnee Minisink: A Stratified Paleoindian-Archaic Site in the Upper
Delaware Valley of Pennsylvania, edited by Charles W., Jr. McNett, 55-79. Orlando, Florida: Academic
Press.
Desilver, Robert. 1830. Deilver's Philadelphia Directory and Stranger's Guide, 1830. Philadelphia: Robert Desilver.
Accessed October 22, 2019. https://archive.org/details/philadelphiadire1830phil/page/n20.
Dunn, Mary Marples, and Richard S. Dunn. 1982. "The Founding, 1681-1701." In Philadelphia: A 300-Year History,
edited by Russell F. Weigley. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Dworsky, Joel Garrett. 2011. Ghosts on the Coast of Paradise: Indentifying and Interpreting the Ephemeral Remains
of Bermuda's 18th Century shipyards. Masters Thesis, Anthropology, College of William and Mary - Arts &
Sciences, Williamsburg: College of William and Mary - Arts & Sciences. Accessed October 22, 2019.
https://scholarworks.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5921&context=etd.
Eisenberg, Leonard. 1978. Paleo-Indian Settlement Pattern in the Hudson and Delaware River Drainages.
Occasional Publications in Northeastern Anthropology 4. Rindge, New Hampshire: Department of
Anthropology, Franklin Pierce College.
Evans, June. 1985. "Paleoindian to Early Archaic Transition at the Shawnee Minisink Site." In Shawnee Minisink: A
Stratified Paleoindian-Archaic Site in the Upper Delaware Valley of Pennsylvania, edited by Charles W., Jr.
McNett, 221-259. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press.
Farley, James J. 2014. "THE BIGGER OF MY NEW SHIPS IS NEAR LAUNCHING …’: THE SHIPBUILDERS OF
EARLY PHILADELPHIA , 1676-1772." Chap. Chapter 1 in To Commit Ourselves to Our Own Ingenuity and
Industry: Joshua Humphreys-Early Philadelphia Ship Building. Wordpress. Accessed 22 2019, October.
https://earlyphiladelphiashipbuilding.wordpress.com/page/2/.
Folie, A. P., and Samuel Allardice. 1794. To Thomas Mifflin, governor and commander in chief of the state of
Pennsylvania, this plan of the city and suburbs of Philadelphia is respectfully inscribed by the editor, 1794,
Southern Sheet: Plan of the city and suburbs of Philadelphia, Southern Sheet. Harvard Map Collection,
Harvard University, Philadelphia. Accessed October 22, 2019. https://id.lib.harvard.edu/curiosity/scanned-
maps/44-990098904780203941_FHCL:1184504.
Ford, Ben. 2007. "Down by the Water’s Edge: Modeling Shipyard Locations in Maryland, USA." The International
Journal of Nautical Archaeology 36 (1): 125-137.
Gardner, William M. 1977. "Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex and Its Implications for Eastern North American
Prehistory." Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 288: 257-563.
Gardner, William M. 1974. "The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex: Pattern and Process during the Paleo-Indian to
Early Archaic." In The Flint Run Paleo-Indian Complex: A Preliminary Report 1971–1973 Seasons.
Occasional Publication 1., edited by William M. Gardner, 5–47. Washington, D.C.: Catholic University
Archeology Laboratory.
Gardner, William M. 1983. "What Goes Up Must Come Down: Transhumance in the Mountainous Zones of the Middle
Atlantic." In Upland Archeology in the East: A Symposium, edited by C.R. Geier, M.B. Barber and G.A.
Tolley, 2-42. United States Department of Agriculture.
Gillingham, Harold E. 1932. "Some Colonial Ships Built in Philadelphia." Pennsylvania Magazine of History and
Biography 156-186.
Goldberg, Joseph A. 1976. Shipbuilding in Colonial America. Charlottesville, Virginia: University Press of Virginia for
the Mariner's Museum.
Griffin, James B. 1967. "Eastern North American Archaeology: A Summary." Science 156: 175-191.
Heap, George, Nicholas Scull, and Thomas Jefferys. 1754. "An east prospect of the city of Philadelphia." Compiled
by Prints and Photographs: Print Collection, The New York Public Library. The Miriam and Ira D. Wallach

8.2
Division of Art. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Thomas Jefferys. Accessed October 21, 2019.
https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/510d47d9-7ac2-a3d9-e040-e00a18064a99.
Hexamer & Locher. 1859. "Ward 11 (Plate 43)." Maps of the City of Philadelphia, 1858-1860. Vol. 4. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania: Hexamer & Locher. 43. Accessed September 26, 2019. https://www.philageohistory.org/rdic-
images/view-image.cfm/HXL1859v4-PL43.
Hills, John. 1796. "Plan of the City of Philadelphia and Its Environs shewing the improved parts..." Zebooker
Collection, Athenaeum of Philadelphia. Pennsylvania. Accessed September 26, 2019.
https://www.philageohistory.org/rdic-images/view-image.cfm/237-MP-019.
Hopkins, G. M. 1875. "Plate I." City Atlas of Philadelphia, Vol. 6, Wards 2 through 20, 29 and 31. Vol. 6. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania: G. M. Hopkins & Co. I. Accessed September 26, 2019. https://www.philageohistory.org/rdic-
images/view-image.cfm/GMH1875v6-plate_I.
John Milner Associates, Inc. 2013. Exploratory Archaeological Investigations of the West Shipyard Lot, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: Prepared for the Delaware River Waterfront Corporation by John Milner
Associates, Inc.
Johnson, Amandus. 1914. The Swedes in America, 1638-1900. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: The Lenape Press.
—. 1911a. The Swedish Settlements on the Delaware, 1638-1664. Vol. 1. Philadelphia: The Philadelphia Swedish
Colonial Society.
—. 1911b. The Swedish Settlements on the Delaware, 1638-1664. Vol. 2. Philadelphia: The Philadelphia Swedish
Colonial Society.
Kent, Barry C., Ira F., III Smith, and Catherin McCann. 1971. Foundations of Pennsylvania Prehistory. Pennsylvania
Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg: Anthropological Series of Pennsylvania Historical and
Museum Commission, Number 1.
Kingsley, Robert G., and Tod L. Benedict. 1991. The Delta and Pretzel Sites: Two Late Archaic-Early Woodland Sites
on Big Timber Creek, Gloucester County, New Jersey; Archeological Data Recovery in Association with the
Final Design of Routes 41 and 42, Township of Deptford, New Jersey. Report Prepared for EMJ/McFarland-
Johnson and the New Jersey Department of Transportation, West Chester, PA.: John Milner Associates, Inc.
Kinsey, W. F. 1972. Archaeology in the Upper Delaware Valley: A Study of the Cultural Chronology of the Tocks Island
Reservoir. Anthropological Series No. 2. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.
Knight, D R. 1851. "Insurance Survey for James West and Mordecai Lewis - Policy 08435." Records of the
Philadelphia Contributorship. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Philadelphia Contributorship, February 17.
—. 1852. "Insurance Survey of Charles M. Bacon - No. 08700." Philadelphia, Pennsylvanai: Philadelphia
Contributorship Records, February 12.
—. 1851. "Insurance Survey of Sarah Graeff - Policy 08332." Records of the Philadelphia Contributorship.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, May 2.
Kraft, Herbert C. 1986. "Late Woodland Settlement Patterns in the Upper Delaware Valley." In Late Woodland
Cultures of the Middle Atlantic Region, edited by Jay F. Custer, 102-115. Newark, Delaware: University of
Delaware Press.
—. 1986b. The Lenape: Archeology, History, and Ethnography. Newark, New Jersey: New Jersey Historical Society.
1850. "Latest Particulars of the Fire." Public Ledger and Daily Transcript. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, July 11. 2.
Accessed September 26, 2019. https://www.newspapers.com/image/40314628/?terms=Philadelphia.
Lemon, James T. 1987. "Colonial America in the Eighteenth Century." Chap. 6 in North America the Historical
Geography of a Changing Continent, edited by Robert D. Mitchell and Paul A. Groves, 121-146. Totowa,
New Jersey: Rowman and Littlefield.
Mancl, Tim, Joseph Balicki, and Rebecca Yamin. 2013. Exploratory Archaeological investigations of the West
Shipyard Lot, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: Prepared for the Delaware River Waterfront
Corporation by John Milner Associates, Inc.
Mason, Ronald J. 1962. "The Paleo-Indian Tradition in Eastern North America." Current Anthropology 3 (3): 277-283.
McElroy, A. M. 1849. McElroy's Philadelphia Directory for 1840. Philadelphia: Edward C. & John Biddle, No. 6 Sourth
Fifth Street. Accessed October 22, 2019. https://archive.org/details/mcelroysphiladel1849amce/page/n7.
McNett, Charles W., Jr., ed. 1985. Shawnee Minisink: A Stratified Paleoindian-Archaic Site in the Upper Delaware
Valley of Pennsylvania. Orlando, Florida: Academic Press.
Meltzer, D., and B. D. Smith. 1986. "Paleo-Indian and Early Archaic Subsistence Strategies in Eastern North
America." In Foraging, Collecting and Harvesting: Archaic Period Subsistence and Settlement in the Eastern
Woodland, edited by Sarah Ward Neusius, 3-31. Center for Archaeological Investigations, Southern Illinois
University, Carbondale.

8.3
Middlebrook, Louis F. 1934. "The Ship Mary of Philadelphia, 1740." Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography
127-151.
Miller, Richard G. 1982. "The Federal City, 1783-1800." In Philadelphia: A 300-Year History, edited by Russell F.
Weigley, 155-207. New York, New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Moeller, Roger W. 1980. 6LF21: A Paleo-Indian Site in Western Connecticut. Washington, Connecticut: American
Indian Archeological Institute Occasional Paper No. 2.
Myers, Albert Cook, ed. 1912. Narratives of Early Pennsylvania, West New Jersey, and Delaware. New York, New
York: C. Scribner’s Sons.
Nash, Gary, and Billy G. Smith. 1975. "The Population of Eighteenth-Century Philadelphia." Pennsylvania Magazine
of History and Biography 99 (3): 362-368.
Newcomb, William W. 1956. The Culture and Acculturation of the Delaware Indians. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University
of Michigan.
Paxton, John A. 1811. To the Citizens of Philadelphia, This New Plan Of the City of Philadelphia and Environs Taken
From Actual Survey, 1811. Franklin Institute, Philadelphia. Accessed October 22, 2019.
http://www.philageohistory.org/rdic-images/view-image.cfm/GR.II.06.
Raber, Paul A. 1985. A Comprehensive State Plan for the Conservation of Archaeological Resources, Vols. I and II.
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission.
Ritchie, William A. 1965. The Archeology of New York State. New York: Natural History Press.
Ritter, Abraham. 1860. Philadelphia and her merchants: as constituted fifty @ seventy years ago : illustrated by
diagrams of the river front and portraits of some of the prominent occupants, together with sketches of
character and incidents and anecdotes of the day. Philadelphia: Published by the Author.
Robinson, James. 1805. The Philadelphia Directory for 1805: Containing the Names, Trades, and Residence, of the
Inhabitants of the City, Southwark, and Northern Liberties. Philadelphia: James Robinson. Accessed
October 22, 2019. https://archive.org/details/philadelphiadire1805phil/page/n5.
—. 1810. The Philadelphia Directory for 1810: Containing the Names, Trades, and Residence, of the Inhabitants, of
the City, Southwark, & Northern Liberties. Philadelphia: James Robinson. Accessed October 22, 2019.
https://archive.org/details/philadelphiadire1810phil/page/n6.
Rosenberg, Charles G. 1850. The great conflagration in Philadelphia on Tuesday July 9th 1850 : Terrific explosion of
saltpetre in Water Street. Houses destroyed by the fire 500, Killed 57, Wounded 115, Loss of property over
one million of dollars. Library Company of Philadelphia, Philadelphia. Accessed October 31, 2019.
https://digital.librarycompany.org/islandora/object/digitool%3A64217.
Sanborn Map Company. 1916. "Sheet 209." Insurance Maps of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Vol. 3, 1916. Compiled
by Penn State University Libraries. New York, New York: Sanborn Map Company. Accessed October 22,
2019. https://digital.libraries.psu.edu/digital/collection/maps1/id/16514/rec/3.
Scharf, Thomas J., and Thompson Westcott. 1884. History of Philadelphia: 1608–1884. Vols. 1-3. 3 vols.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: L. H. Everts & Company.
Scull, Nicholas, Matthew Clarkson, and Mary Biddle. 1762. "To the mayor, recorder, aldermen, common council, and
freemen of Philadelphia this plan of the improved part of the city surveyed and laid down by the late
Nicholas Scull." Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: Library of Congress. Accessed September 26, 2019.
https://lccn.loc.gov/74692589.
Siddall, Joseph H. 1850. "Plan of Delaware Avenue from Vine St. to Cohocksink Creek in the District of the Northern
Liberties." Philadelphia Streets Department, Survey and Designs Bureau. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
September 20. Accessed September 26, 2019. https://www.philageohistory.org/rdic-images/view-
image.cfm/054-02_HP.
Sidney, J. C. 1849. Map of the City of Philadelphia together with all the surrounding Districts. Frankford Historical
Society, Philadelphia. Accessed September 22, 2019. https://www.philageohistory.org/rdic-
images/index2.cfm?w=HSF%2ED2G8.
Siegel, Peter E., Tod L. Benedict, and Robert G. Kingsley. 1999. Phase III Archeological Data Recoveries at the Fahs
II (36NM116) and Oberly Island (36NM140) Sites: Structure, Function, and Context in the Lower Lehigh
Valley. West Chester, Pennsylvania: Report prepared for Greiner Woodward Clyde by John Milner
Associates, Inc.
Soderlund, Jean R. 2015. Lenape Country Delaware Valley Society before William Penn. Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press. http://site.ebrary.com/id/10953820.
Stewart, R. Michael. 1985. "Prehistoric Ceramics of the Lower/Middle Delaware Valley." Denver, Colorado: Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for American Archaeology.

8.4
Stewart, R. Michael. 1983. "Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in the Blue Ridge Province of Maryland." In Upland
Archeology in the East: A Symposium. Cultural Resources Report No. 2, 43-90. Washington, D.C.: Forest
Service Southern Region, United States Department of Agriculture.
Stewart, R. Michael, Chris C. Hummer, and Jay F. Custer. 1986. "Late Woodland Cultures of the Middle and Lower
Delaware River Valley and the Upper Delmarva Peninsula." In Late Woodland Cultures of the Middle Atlantic
Region, edited by Jay F. Custer, 58–89. Newark, Delaware: University of Delaware Press.
Sugrue, Thomas J. 1992. "The Peopling and Depeopling of Early Pennsylvania: Indians and Colonists, 1680-1720."
The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography 116 (1): 3-31.
Tanner, Henry S. 1837. Philadelphia and Environs. (to accompany) The American Traveller; Or Guide Through the
United States. Containing Brief Notices of the Several States, Cities, Principal Towns. Third. Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania: Published by the Author, No. 51 South Third Street. Accessed October 21, 2019.
https://www.davidrumsey.com/luna/servlet/detail/RUMSEY~8~1~238339~5511445:Philadelphia-And-
Environs?sort=Pub_List_No_InitialSort%2CPub_Date%2CPub_List_No%2CSeries_No&qvq=w4s:/who%2F
Tanner%25252C%2BHenry%2BS.%2Fwhere%2FPennsylvania;q:tanner%20philadelphia;.
Turner, E. Randolph. 1986. "Difficulties in the Archaeological Identifications of Chiefdoms as Seen in the Virginia
Coastal Plain During the Late Woodland and Early Historic Periods." In Late Woodland Cultures of the
Middle Atlantic Region, edited by Jay F. Custer, 19-28. Newark, Delaware: University of Delaware Press.
Tvengsberg, Per Martin. 1995. "Finns in Seventeenth-Century Sweden and their Contributions to the New Sweden
Colony." In New Sweden in America, edited by Carol E. Hoffecker, Richard Waldron and E. W. Lorraine, 279-
290. Cranbury, New Jersey: Associated University Presses.
Wainwright, Nicholas B. 1952. A Philadelphia Story: 1752–1952. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The Philadelphia
Contributionship.
Wall, Robert D. 1981. An Archeological Study of the Western Maryland Coal Region: The Prehistoric Resources.
Baltimore: Maryland Geological Survey, Division of Archeology.
Wall, Robert D. 1991. "Early to Middle Archaic Period Occupations in Western Maryland: A Preliminary Model."
Journal of Middle Atlantic Archaeology 7: 53-65.
Watson, John Fanning. 1850. Annals of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania. Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Weber, Carmen A., and Rebecca Yamin. 1988/2006. An Examination of Philadelphia's Early Waterfront Through the
Archaeology of the Hertz Lot. Philadelphia: John Milner Associates, Inc.
West, Charles. 1761. Last Will and Testament. Vol. M, in Philadelphia Book of Wills, 177-185. Philadelphia.
West, James. 1761. Last Will and Testament. Vol. 143, in Philadelphia Book of Wills, 254. Philadelphia.
Whitely, Edward. 1820. The Philadelphia Directory and Register, for 1820. Philadelphia: McCarty & Davis. Accessed
October 22, 2019. https://archive.org/details/philadelphiadire1820phil/page/n29.
Witthoft, John. 1953. "Broad Spearpoints and the Transitional Period Cultures." Pennsylvania Archaeologist 23 (1):
53-65.
Zabel, Craig. 2012. "William Penn's Philadelphia: The Land and the Plan." Chap. 1 in Nature's Entrepot:
Philadelphia's Urban Sphere and its Environmental Thresholds, edited by Brian C. Black and Michael J.
Chiarappa, 17-44. Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania: University of Pittsburgh.

8.5
Appendix A. Master Context Log

A.1
Master Context Log

Context Type Horizon Soil Description Notes Trench/Unit(s) Feature
1 Modern Fill Modern Asphalt Tarmac black (10YR2/1) Modern parking lot surface 1970-present Site-Wide
very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) SiLo with 80%
2 Modern Fill Modern fill related to parking lot construction Site-Wide
6" angular gravels
black (10YR2/1) SiSaLo fine sand small angular
3 Fill A thin band of black TR1
gravels
dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/6) Sand small
4 Fill minor brick inclusions TR1
rounded gravels
Dark olive-brown (2.5Y3/3) SiSa 20% sub-angular
5 Fill minor brick inclusions, coal, slag TR1
gravels
6 Fill Dark gray (2.5Y4/1) SiSa Fine sand component, homogenous dredge soils TR1/Unit 1 1
7 Structure Mortared Schist wall Perpendicular to Water Street abuts Context 8 TR1/Unit 1 1
8 Structure Mortared Schist wall Parallel to Water Street abuts Context 7 TR1/Unit 1 1
9 Feature very dark brown (10YR2/2) wood and loam A dark deposit of wood chips from hewing TR1 3
10 Structure A wood beam running E/W TR1 4
11 Structure A wood beam running N/S TR1 4
12 Feature Plank frag North TR1 4
13 Feature Plank frag South TR1 4
14 Structure Plank/beam running E/W TR1 4
A large hand-hewn beam E/W, sticking out of East wall of
17 Structure TR1 5
Trench 1
18 Decaying Plank black (10YR2/1) SiLo A decayed remnant of an E/W running plank TR1
CONTEXT 19
19
REMOVED
20 Fill Dark deposit west of Feature 1 Likely beam TR1
likely basement rubble infill of Feature 1, combined with
21 Feature Dark soil with intact brick w/mortar TR1
Context 32
Dark grayish brown (2.5Y4/2) SiSa some clay
22 Fill TR1
inclusions
23 Fill very dark brown (10YR2/2) SiLo mostly wood pulp Likely floor TR1
24 Fill dark gray (10YR4/1) SiSa, minor brick inclusions TR2
CONTEXT 25
25
REMOVED
26 Fill black (10YR2/1) LoSa organic with minor wood fragments, likely surface TR2
brown (10YR4/3) Sand, medium-coarse, 40%-60%
27 Natural C-Horizon natural 'beachy' sands, related to Context 74 in TR1 TR2
med to large rounded gravels
very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) sand, medium-
28 Fill TR2
coarse
gray (10YR5/1) SiCl brick inclusions, gley
29 Fill TR2
inclusions
CONTEXT 30
30
REMOVED
Strong brown (7.5YR4/6 to 7.5YR5/8) sand with
31 Natural C-Horizon Trenton gravels, related to Context 92 and Context 93 TR2
slight clay inclusions, small to medium cobbles

2
Master Context Log

very dark brown (10YR2/2) SaLo medium-coarse,
32 Interior Fill Combined with Context 32 TR1
small pebbles
33 Fill Gray (10YR6/1) sand with fill with mortar inclusions TR2
very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) SiSa 90%
34 Fill Some inclusions of brick & wood TR2
rounded pebbles
35 Fill black (10YR2/1) SiSa 40% rounded pebbles Thin band beneath railroad ballast TR2
36 Fill Yellowish-brown (10YR5/6) Silt A thin band of fill TR2
37 Fill dark gray (10YR4/1) SiSa, brick & mortar inclusions TR2
38 Fill Dark grayish brown (2.5Y4/2) medium-coarse sand small rounded pebbles TR2
39 Fill Very dark gray (2.5Y3/1) Silt Contains a minor brick inclusion TR2
40 Fill Gray (5YR6/1) fine sand Ashy mortar deposit TR2
41 Fill Light olive brown (2.5Y5/3) silt fill lens TR2
42 Fill dark gray (10YR4/1) SiSa 10% medium cobbles post hole fill TR2 9
43 Structure 0.5 x 0.5-foot wooden post TR2 9
44 Structure wooden beam TR2
large mortared stone wall in line with the south end of the
45 Feature structure A stone wall 3.4 feet thick TR2 10
wooden nineteenth-century structure
46 Feature A wooden plank 1.0 ft wide The plank is mortared into the north side of Context 45 TR2 10
47 Feature A wooden plank floor N-S laid planks TR2 11
48 Feature A granite pillar base in TR2, South of floor South of floor TR2 12
Modern concrete
49 A concrete block South of the granite pillar base TR2 13
block
A prepared base pea-sized compact gravels w/ very dark brown
50 below wooden (10YR2/2) SiLo and pockets of yellowish-brown Below Context 47 / fill, SAME AS CONTEXT 67 TR2 14
planks (10YR5/8) SaCl
51 Fill brown (10YR4/3) Abuts Feature 1 TR1
52 Structure A wooden joist underlying Context 47 1 of 3 joists underlying Context 47 TR2 15
55 Structure A wooden plank in TR1 N-S laid plank TR1
56 Fill A wooden plank in TR1 E-W plank overlaying Context 11 TR1
A stone footing on the south side of the Feature 10
57 Structure Shown in planview drawing #1 TR2
wall
58 Structure A large schist slab, dressed stone, well cap Found at the same level/grade as Context 59 TR2 16
A large schist slab, dressed stone, used as a footer
59 Structure Found at the same level/grade as Context 58 TR2 12
for the Feature 12 pillar
A single course of brick supporting Context 48 pillar
60 Structure capped by mortar Context 61 TR2 12
base
A layer of mortar sitting atop of Context 60 holding
61 Structure TR2 12
Context 48 in place
A pocket of semi-articulate brick and mortar, very on either side of Context 48 stone pillar base and caps
62 Fill TR2
dark brown (10YR2/2) SiLo Context 59
A layer of brick chunks suspended in a mortar
63 Fill beneath Context 2 ballast layer TR2
matrix
Mixed fill dark gray (10YR4/1) SiSa with brown The south end of trench sediment mixed together likely when
64 Fill TR2
(10YR5/4) and dark brown (7.5YR3/2) concrete pad Feat. 13 added

3
Master Context Log

very dark brown (10YR2/2) silt w/ large chunks of
65 Fill TR2
brick
very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) SaLo
66 surface? transitioning to dark brown (10YR3/3) SaLo with TR2
increasing gravel content by depth
A compacted fill layer into which floor joists were laid. This
67 Fill compacted brown (10YR5/4) coarse sand TR2
was a prepared surface
68 Fill compacted strong brown (7.5YR5/8) SiSa A layer of silt capping a wooden floor Context 47 TR2
This fill deposit runs along the top of the floor planks (Context
69 Fill Dark brown (7.5YR3/2) SiSa with wood TR2
47). It is likely just organically stained Context 68.
Medium-Fine sand, no major mixing, sandwiched between
70 Natural? Fill? very dark gray (10YR3/1) SiSa TR1
two layers of woody pulp, see Context 86
71 Natural? Fill? dark gray (10YR4/1) SaSi, 60% gravels large planks present with large gravels TR1
Beneath Context 58 well cap was not filled on the interior, sat
72 Structure Brick shaft wall – 3-foot diameter well TR2 16
above Trenton gravels
Construction fill similar to Context 21 and Context 32 but
73 Fill dark gray (10YR4/1) with brick and coal TR1 / Unit 1
inside Feature 1 underlying Context 51
natural C-horizon heavily scoured "beach" sand, possibly
74 Natural C-Horizon C-Horizon dark grayish brown (10YR4/2) sand TR1 / Unit 1
same as Context 27 in TR2
Joist below wooden floor planks - part of Feature
75 Structure-related TR2 15
15, along with Context 52-54
Structure-related, A wooden beam / probably a 4x4, not in-situ, located in the
76 Wooden beam - shown in planview drawing #7 TR2
not in-situ southern half of TR2 approx. 1.5ft South of Feature 10
wooden "footers" placed at the base of a brick well, shown in
77 Structure Wooden planks used as footers for the base of well TR2
drawing #5
A stone south of wall Feature 10, shown in profile A stone below prepared floor surface Context 50/67, possibly
78 Stone TR2
drawing #7 structural related, shown in East profile
79 Stone TR2
80 Stone TR2
Mottled strong brown (7.5YR4/6) & dark yellowish- This context is related to Context 58 / slab "cap" - mottled
81 Builder’s trench TR2
brown (10YR4/4) SiSa with gravels soils from the placement of slab over well
82 Builder’s trench Around wooden plank/beam TR1 17
Wooden structural These shoring timbers appear to have been used to support
83 Abuts Context 72, bricks of well, "shoring" TR2
supports the brick wall of the shaft during construction
There is a metal spike in one end of context, no more timbers
84 Timber / structural A timber most likely associated with wharf TR2
associated
wood "footers"
Wooden footers under the stone/mortar structure of
85 under Feature 1 Very fragile and heavily decayed TR1 / Unit 1
Feature 1
stone wall
The context sits beneath the builder’s trench in TR1, see
86 Fill Grayish brown (2.5Y5/2) Silt TR1
Context 70
87 Wooden post SW corner of West wall profile Approximately 4' left TR1 6
88 Beam wooden beam in East wall of TR1 at Southern end TR1 18
fill with brick inclusions, very dark grayish brown
89 Fill Underlies Context 70 TR1
(10YR3/2) SiSa

4
Master Context Log

90 Fill gray (10YR5/1) Silt Underlies Context 89 TR1
Dark organic fill, very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2)
91 Fill TR1
SaSi Underlies Context 90
Trenton gravels with small rounded pebbles, strong
92 Natural soil C-Horizon The first layer of Trenton gravels TR1
brown (7.5YR4/6) coarse sand
Trenton gravels strong brown (7.5YR5/8) with
93 Natural soil C-Horizon The second layer of Trenton gravels TR1
rounded gravels
hand-hewn beam along Feature 1 and 2, associated with
94 Structural A wooden beam TR1
builder’s trench (Context 82)
Black (10YR2/1) SiSa, medium-coarse sands with
95 Fill lens last fill layer that we hit the natural shoreline TR2
gravels
The stone and mortar foundation of a nineteenth-
96 Structural Eastern of trench 3, similar to Feature 2 in trench 2 TR3 / Unit 2 19
century structure
Eastern of trench 3, similar to Feature 2 and floorboards in
97 Structural Floorboards on the interior of structure Feature 19 TR3 20
Trench 2
Brown (10YR5/2) SiSa with large brick fragment
98 Fill Context overlain by Context 2, overlies Context 99 TR3
inclusions
A prepared surface capping a wooden plank floor in Context
99 Fill Gray (10YR6/1), mortar with chunks of brick TR3
97 (Feature 20)
Brown (7.5YR5/4) SiLo with inclusions of a large
100 Fill Context abuts Context 102, overlies Context 101 and 104 TR3
brick
Very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) SiCl and SiLo -
101 Fill medium gray SiSa with inclusions of brick and Context abuts Context 100, overlies Context 102 and 104 TR3
mortar
dark gray (10YR4/1) SiSa; wall matrix; sandy
102 Fill A historic fill between Context 96, Feature 19 TR3
decomposing mortar
Brownish-yellow (10YR6/6), SiLo; fill between
103 Fill Context is related to wall construction TR3/TR4
context 96 and context 2, decaying mortar
A dark-gray infill related to the construction of Feature 19,
104 Fill Brown (10YR4/3) SiLo TR3/Unit 2
Context 96
Dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/6) SiLo with small
105 Fill A historic fill predating Feature 19, Context 96 TR3
brick inclusions
106 Fill brown (10YR4/3) SiLo with brick inclusions A historic fill predating Feature 19, Context 96 TR3
Dark gray (7.5YR4/1) SiLo with brick and gravel A historic fill predating Feature 19, Context 96, possible living TR3 / Unit 2 &
107 Fill
inclusions surface or related to extension
108 Structural Schist stone, possible footer TR3
Context is overlain by Context 2 and 100, overlies Context
109 Fill Brown (10YR5/4) SiLo TR3
101 and 105
Context is overlain by Context 109 and 2, overlies Context
110 Fill Brownish-yellow (10YR6/6) Silt TR3
105
possibly structural
111 Possible historic living surface Context is overlain by Context 107, overlies Context 112 TR3
related
TR3 / Unit 2
112 Fill Dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/4) SiLo Context is overlain by Context 111, overlies Context 113
extension
TR3 / Unit 2
113 Fill Black (10YR2/1) SiLo "damp" Context is overlain by Context 112, cut by Context 114
extension

5
Master Context Log

Context is fill sediment from conduit construction, overlain by
114 Fill Brown (10YR4/3) Sand – medium-coarse TR3
Context 2
115 Structural A series of 8 conduit pipes/modern Modern disturbance related to the installation of conduit TR3 21
116 Structural A wooden post within Context 107 TR3 / Unit 2 23
Very dark grayish brown (2.5Y3/2) mottled with A historic fill underlying Context 107 and is cut by Context
117 Fill TR3 / Unit 2
olive-brown (2.5Y4/4) SiSa 104
118 Fill Black (10YR2/1) SiSa A historic fill, very greasy petroleum laden fill TR3 / Unit 2
119 Fill Black (10YR2/1) Sand with coal ash and cinder A small dark band TR3 / Unit 2
120 Fill Black (10YR2/1) SiLo A dark historic fill overlying nineteenth-century schist wall TR4
Light olive brown (2.5Y5/4) mottled with very dark
121 Fill A historic fill with large brick inclusions north of Context 96 TR4
grayish brown (10YR3/2) SaLo
Dark gray (2.5Y4/1) SiSa with small brick inclusions
122 Fill A historic fill abutting the interior of a schist wall TR4
and small gravels
Dark gray (2.5Y4/1) SiSa with inclusions of Gley2 TR3 / Unit 2 SW1/4
123 Fill Context cuts Context 107 in the south half
5/10 brick, mortar, and burnt wood ext.
The context contained tin-glazed earthenware and a TR3 / Unit 2 SW1/4
124 Fill Reddish-brown (7.5YR4/4) SiSa with small gravels
pipestem ext.
125 Structure wooden floor joist TR3
130 Structure mortared stone pillar TR3
Dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/4) Sand with rounded
131 Fill A medium-coarse sand TR3
gravels
132 Fill Dark gray (10YR4/1) SiSa A fill beneath prepared flooring, same as Context 147 TR3
Context is overlain by Context 117, possibly disturbed natural
133 Fill Dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/4) SiSa TR3
soils
Reinforced concrete with rebar and crushed gravel
134 Fill TR5
prep below it
135 Fill Very pale brown (10YR8/2) construction sand Context is sand laid over a concrete structure, Context 136 TR5
A large concrete structural footer at the southern end of the
136 Structural concrete block TR5 25
trench
137 Structural A stone wall footer, made of mortared stone/granite Context located beneath Context 96 wall TR3 45
138 Structural A stone wall footer, made of mortared stone/granite A stone wall, made of mortared stone/granite TR3 32
139 Structural A stone wall footer, made of mortared stone/granite Perpendicular to Context 137 TR3 33
140 Fill Brown (7.5YR4/4) SiSa Context is a fill with brick inclusions TR5
Context is a fill possibly associated with concrete slab,
141 Fill Dark brown (7.5YR3/2) SaLo TR5
Context 136
142 Fill Yellowish-brown (10YR5/6) SiLo A small fill pocket TR5
143 Fill Brown (7.5YR5/3) SiSa A dense fill with a large concentration of brick and mortar TR5
144 Fill Strong brown (7.5YR5/8) SiLo A very silty fill with mica and coal inclusions TR5
145 Fill Gray (7.5YR5/1) coal ash Coal ash with shell inclusions TR5
Brown (10YR5/4) mottled with strong brown An extremely mottled fill with large brick inclusions. The
146 Fill TR3
(7.5YR4/6) SiLo Context overlies Context 97

6
Master Context Log

A fill horizon underlying wooden floor (Context 97) and
147 Fill Brown (10YR5/2) SiSa TR3
subflooring (Context 131), same as Context 132
The context is similar in color and texture to Context 150.
148 Fill Light brownish gray (10YR6/2) SiSa TR3
Associated with the adjacent brick rubble.
149 Fill Very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) SiLo A large package of brick rubble overlying Context 137 TR3
150 Fill Light brownish gray (10YR6/2) SiSa A light gray fill in the interior of contexts 137, 138 and 139 TR3
dark yellowish-brown (10YR3/4) SiSa, 20% angular
151 Fill Similar to Context 117 TR3
gravels
Strong brown (7.5YR5/8) mottled with light brown
152 Fill Compact fill TR5
(7.5YR6/4) SiLo
153 Fill Very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) SiSa Brick and mortar inclusions TR5
154 Fill Brown (10YR5/4) crumbling mortar Redeposited mortar lens TR5
155 Fill Brown (7.5YR4/4) sand Medium coarse sand TR5
156 Fill Brown (10YR4/3) SiSa Context is slightly mottled with yellowish brown (10YR5/6) silt TR5
Context is part of the wall matrix. It contains mortar and schist
157 Fill Strong brown (7.5YR5/6) SiLo TR5
throughout.
Small brick inclusions and burnt wood, many large pieces of
158 Fill Dark grayish brown (10YR4/2) fine-grain SiSa TR5
construction debris near the north end of trench
159 Fill Reddish gray (5YR5/2) coarse sand Loosely packed with brick inclusions TR5
160 Fill Brown (10YR4/3) mottled with 10YR5/6 SaSi A thin lens with brick inclusions TR5
very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) SiLo mottled
161 Fill with brown (10YR5/3) and dark yellowish-brown Small brick inclusions of brick and burnt wood TR5
(10YR4/6)
Stone, mortar and schist wall at the southern end of the
162 Structural TR5 27
trench
Wall at the southern end of trench, north of Feature 27,
163 Structural TR5 28
Context 162
164 Fill Very dark gray (10YR3/1) SiLo, 40% gravel historic fill associated with the mid-nineteenth century TR4
newer historic living floor, overlain by Context 164, cut by
165 Fill Black (10YR2/1) SiLo, 40% gravel TR4
Context 122
166 Fill Brown (10YR5/4) SiSa A leveling deposit for living floor, cut by Context 100 TR4
An early living floor of the mid-nineteenth century, cut by
167 Fill Dark yellowish brown (10YR3/4) SiSa TR4
Context 122
Yellowish-brown (10YR5/8) sand, 60% small A historic fill, grading fill related to nineteenth-century
168 Fill TR4
rounded gravels building, cut by Context 122
A historic fill, grading fill related to nineteenth-century
169 Fill Dark yellowish-brown (10YR3/6) SiLo, 15% gravel TR4
building, cut by Context 122
A historic fill, sandy pocket related to the construction of a
170 Fill Yellow (10YR7/6) sand TR4
stone slab
171 Structural Stone footer A stone footer associated with Context 163, Feature 28 TR5
172 Structural Brick, mortar and schist wall A stone wall in the northern end of the trench TR5 29
173 Structural Wooden pier footer post Partially under Context 137 TR3 33
Possibly representative of another line of pier post parallel to
174 Structural Wooden pier footer post TR3 34
Context 175
175 Structural Wooden beam Parallel to Water Street TR3
176 Structural Wooden pier footer Context is in line with Context 173 and parallel to Context 179 TR3 36
177 Structural Stone footer of Context 96 TR4

7
Master Context Log

Very dark brown (10YR2/2) SiSa with clay
178 Fill A historic fill yielding eighteenth-century artifacts TR3
inclusions
179 Structural Well shaft TR3 31
A wooden pipe later discovered to be a section of a degraded
180 Structural Wooden "pipe" TR5 26
telephone pole.
181 Structural Wooden post Wooden post still in the ground TR5 30
Wooden living surface, possibly the interior of a historic
182 Structural Wooden floor TR5 32
building
183 Fill Rebar reinforced concrete slab, same as Context 134 TR4
A modern fill associated with the reinforced concrete and
184 Fill Strong brown (7.5YR4/6) medium-coarse sand TR4
asphalt parking lot
185 Fill Dark olive-brown (2.5Y3/3) SiSa Trench fill from the construction of concrete slab, Feature 24 TR4
186 Structural Concrete slab A concrete slab TR4 37
Dark yellowish brown (10YR4/6) mottled with dark A historic fill associated with the mid-twentieth century Hertz
187 Fill TR4
brown (10YR3/3) parking lot
188 Fill Brown (10YR5/3) SiLo A fill layer holding wooden boards in place TR5
Dark grayish brown (10YR4/2) SiLo, compact with
189 Fill A fill deposit with large brick inclusions TR5
20% sub-angular gravel
190 Fill Brown (10YR5/4) SiSa, 5% sub-angular gravel A sandy fill, abuts timber, small brick fragment inclusions TR5
Coal flecking and mottling, strong smell of petroleum
191 Fill Brown (10YR5/2) with coal inclusions TR5
contaminant
Very dark brown (10YR2/2) mottled with 7.5YR4/4
192 Fill Mortar mixed throughout TR5
SiSa
Very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) mottled with
193 Fill Ashy mixed fill TR5
dark yellowish-brown (10YR3/4)
Very dark gray (10YR3/1) SiSa, 30% sub-angular
194 Fill Mixed fill TR5
gravels
195 Fill Gray (10YR5/1) sand Fill below timbers TR5 / Unit 3
196 Structural Plywood Plywood at the edge of the wall in northern section of trench TR5
197 Fill Black (10YR2/1) loam Organic fill with mid-eighteenth-century artifacts TR4 / Unit 4
198 Natural soil C-Horizon Dark gray (10YR4/1) SiSa First of natural river soils with some cultural material TR4 / Unit 4
199 Natural soil C-Horizon Light gray (2.5Y7/1) medium-coarse sand Beach sands with marine faunal TR4 / Unit 4
200 Structural A stone wall in the north side of the trench TR5 38
201 Structural Wooden timber A large wooden timber TR5 39
Stops about 6 feet past Feature 24 to the south at 7 feet
202 Natural soil C-Horizon Loose rounded river cobbles TR4
down
203 Fill Dark grayish brown (10YR4/2) very firm SiLo Artifacts recovered from sampled screening TR5
A black organic lens anywhere from 0.40 to 0.60 feet in
204 Fill Black (10YR2/1) SiLo TR5
thickness of historic fill
Dark gray (10YR4/1) to very dark gray (10YR3/1) A large concentration of red roofing tiles recovered, possibly
205 Fill TR5
SiSa, 30% small gravels wasters or ship ballast dump
Strong brown (7.5YR5/6 to 7.5YR5/8) mottled with A possible builder’s trench associated with Feature 28,
206 Fill TR5
brown (7.5YR5/3) SiSa with brick inclusions Context 163 plus "footer" Context 171
Context 196 plywood "abutted" this context which "cut" stone
207 Structural Modern concrete TR5
foundation Context 200
Dark brown (7.5YR3/4) SiSa compact brick and A small package of fill overlaying Context 167 and cut by
208 Fill TR4
small cobbles Context 209, overlain by Context 120

8
Master Context Log

Very dark grayish brown (10YR3/2) SiLo with brick,
209 Fill Trench fill abutting Context 210, Feature 40 TR4
large cobbles, and sub-angular gravels
210 Structural Concrete slab Concrete slab from Hertz parking lot TR4 40
Noted during the mechanical excavation of TR5 and noted in
211 Structural Black (10YR2/1) SiSaLo post-mold fill TR5 41
east profile (shot in)
212 Structural Stone wall A stone wall related to mid-eighteenth century building TR4 / Unit 4 42
Located between timber Feature 39 and wall Feature 38 at
213 Structural Wooden timber TR5 43
the northern end of the trench
A brick walkway or porch related to eighteenth-century
214 Structural Brick walkway/porch TR4 44
building
215 Fill Gray (10YR5/1) SiSa A gray loose fill TR5
216 Fill Yellowish-brown (10YR5/6) SiSa A yellowish-brown fill, a thin layer TR5
217 Fill Dark yellowish-brown (10YR4/6) SiSa A dark yellowish-brown fill, a thick layer TR5
218 Fill Dark gray (10YR4/1) sand A dark-gray sand fill TR5
219 Fill - natural? Very dark gray (10YR3/1) sand A very dark gray sand, possibly natural soil TR5
Light gray (10YR7/1) mottled with dark grayish
220 Fill Brick and decaying mortar TR4
brown (10YR4/2) brick and decaying mortar
Wooden plank extending south-west from timber, Context
221 Structural Wood plank TR5
201
A thin wood planks and pulp near timber (Context 201) at the
222 Structural Wood planks TR5
east side
Very dark gray (10YR3/1) mottled with dark grayish
223 Fill brown (10YR4/2) and light yellowish brown Disturbed fill TR5
(10YR6/4) SiLo and SiSa
Context is below timber Feature 39, timber coming out of the
224 Structural Timber TR5
eastern wall
225 Structural Concrete slab A concrete slab related to Hertz parking lot TR4 24

9
Appendix B. Property Chronology and Deed Research Summary

B.1
Frontage Lot Name Owner Source Notes
50’ Callowhill Street
Was originally the route of Callowhill

Street. In 1765 Samuel Shoemaker
traded this property with the
Samuel Shoemaker (merchant) (1759-1787) Book H-Vol. 11-Page 181 Proprietors for the land to the south,
50’ Shoemaker Lot the Goodson Lot, shifting Callowhill
Street north and creating a new
Proprietors lot to the south.
Thomas Britton (1787-1796) Book D-Vol. 30-Page 287
John Harrison (1796-1806) Book D-Vol. 58-Page 263
Shoemaker Lot Subdivisions
Bought at public sale from the estate of
John Harrison (1800-1808) Book EF-Vol. 32-Page 185
Thomas Britton
Shoemaker Lot George Knorr (1808-1852) Book EF-Vol. 32-Page 185
(Subdivision 1 Thomas G. Haslam (1852-1864) Book TH-Vol. 14-Page 208
32’8”
corresponds to 10-12 Patrick Gaffney (1864-1886) Book LRB-Vol. 35-Page 325
Callowhill c. 1916) By Sherriff W Elwood Rowan Esq. on
Francis J. Hamilton (1886-1920) Book JMH-Vol. 670-Page 506
10/8/1886
William A. Hamilton (1920-1960) Book JMH-Vol. 670-Page 506
Thomas Britton
Charles Biddle (1809-1831) Book IC-Vol. 5-Page 649
Book SHF-Vol. 20-Page 622
Shoemaker Lot W. A. Biddle (1831-1831) Conveyance # 505
(recitation)
(Subdivision 2 Book SHF-Vol. 20-Page 622
16’
corresponds to 8 Joseph Mansfield (1831-1834)
(recitation)
Callowhill c. 1858)
Mary Death (1834-1834) Book SHF-Vol. 20-Page 622
In recitation land reverts to Mansfield
George Knight (1834-1848) Book RDW-Vol. 94-Page 520
after Mary Death dies
Elizabeth Mansfield (1848-1866) Book RDW-Vol. 94-Page 520

B.2

Walter Clausen (1866-1873) Book LRB-Vol. 175-Page 140
Edwin F. Mansfield is on of Elizabeth
Walter Clausen (1866-1873) Book LRB-Vol. 175-Page 140
and John Mansfield
Daniel and Richard McCarthy (1873-1880) Book FTW-Vol. 98-Page 029
Thomas Britton
Adam Fister (1806-1834) Book EF-Vol. 25-Page 449
Shoemaker Lot
(Subdivision 3 Adam Minser (1834-1851) Book AM-Vol. 52-Page 449
corresponds to the lot on Jonathan Thomas (1851-1851) Recitation
the corner of Callowhill Thomas G. Haslam (1851-1864) Book GWC-Vol. 92-Page 491
and Delaware Ave. c. Hetty was widow and administratrix of
1858) John Murphy (1864-1892) Book LRB-Vol. 35-Page 332
Thomas Haslam
Henry M. DuBois (1892-1892) Book TG-Vol. 242-Page 254
Pennsylvania Railroad Company (1892-1969) Book TG-Vol. 219-Page 411
Originally bounded to the north by
Callowhill Street. In 1765 Samuel
Shoemaker traded this property with
the Proprietors for the land that was at
John Goodson (1694-1717) Patent Book A-Vol. 1-Page 263
the time the right-of-way of Callowhill
50’ Goodson Lot Street, shifting Callowhill Street north
and creating a new Proprietors lot to
the south.
Patent A or 19 Vol. 5 Page 20, Book
Jacob Casdorf (shipwright) (1717-1759)
E7-Vol. 10-Page 308
Samuel Shoemaker (merchant) (1759-1787) Book H-Vol. 11-Page 181
Thomas Britton (1788-1796) Book D-Vol. 30-Page 287
37’6” Penn Lot (North Half)
John Harrison and wife Rachel (1796-1806) Book D-Vol. 58-Page 263
William Massey (1788-1796) Book D- Vol. 57-Page 341
37’6” Penn Lot (South Half)
John Harrison and wife Rachel (1796-1806) Book D-Vol. 58-Page 263
Penn Lot Combined
George Knorr (1806-1852) Book EF-Vol. 26-Page 521
70’ Penn Lot (combined)
Lavinia L. Pedrick (1852-1856) Book TH-Vol. 13-Page 400

B.3

George K. Knight (1852-1856) Book TH-Vol. 13-Page 403
Lehigh Crane Iron Company (1856-1867) Book RDW-Vol. 102-Page 410
Joseph B. Bloodgood (1867-1890) Book JTO-Vol. 100-Page 45
Joseph B. Bloodgood Heirs (1890-1892) -
William B. Bloodgood, Mary F. Bloodgood, Book GGP-Vol. 670-Page 225
Joseph B. Bloodgood Jr., and Annie B Parker
Henry M. DuBois (1892-1892) Book TG-Vol. 205-Page 447
Francis Rawle (1694-1717) Survey Book D-Vol. 86-Page 181
40’ Rawle Lot Joseph Lynn (1717-1742) Book F-Vol. 01-Page 093
Joseph, John, & Jeremiah Lynn (1742-1775) Will Book G-3-Page 6
Thomas Langston (1690-1690) Survey Book D-Vol. 70-Page 046
Patent Book A-Vol. 5-Page 350-
Thomas Sisom (1690-1707)
Recitation
25’ Langston Lot Patent Book A-Vol. 5-Page 350-
Daniel Howel (1707-1717)
Recitation
Joseph Lynn (shipwright) (1717-1742) Patent Book A-Vol. 5-Page 350
Joseph, John, & Jeremiah Lynn (1742-1775) Will Book G-No. 3-Page 6
Edward Shippen Jr. (1775-1777) Book I-Vol. 15-Page 83
Lynn children got this land by the will of
Edward Shippen Jr. (1775-1777) Book I-Vol. 15-Page 83 Joseph Lynn dated October 10, 1742
(Will Book G-Vol. 3-Page 6)
The deed says that Water street is only
Christopher Smith (shipwright) (1777-1784) Book D-Vol. 23-Page 306
30 feet wide
Rawle Lot and Langston Isaac Hazelhurst (merchant) (1784-1810) Book D-Vol. 12-Page 228
65’ Lot Bank of Pennsylvania (1810-1810) Sherriff's Deeds F-Page 96
Thomas Leiper (1810-1824) Book IC-Vol. 11-Page 126
Book 8-Page 435; Thomas Leiper
George Leiper (1824-1839)
(Original) Will
*listed in recitation but could not be
Stephen Simmons (1839-1847) Book SHF-Vol. 30-Page 446
located.
Edward S. Simmons (1847-1850) Book AWM-Vol. 52-Page 400
Jennett Lot John Jennett (1694-1699) Book B-Vol. 2-Page 203

B.4

(Original lot was 50’ but Samuel Spencer (1699-1704) Book D-Vol. 56-Page 262 By will and marriage
was reduced to 48’10” c. John Jreson (1704-1716) Book D-Vol. 56-Page 262
1737 when Wood Street
James Jacobs (1716-1719) Book D-Vol. 56-Page 262
established)
Robert Gerrard (1719-1722) Book D-Vol_64-Page 001
John Richards (1722-1724) Book F-Vol. 03-Page 312
Richard Allen (shipwright) (1724-1737) Book D-Vol. 60-Page 187
50 to
James Parrock (1737-1759) Book F-Vol. 10-Page 164
48’10”
William Taylor (1759-1797) Book D-Vol. 57-Page 181
Jacob Clements and Bankson Taylor
Book D-Volume 64-Page 200 Only the part east of Water Street
(merchants) (1797-1818)
Stephen Simmons (lumber merchant) (1818- Only the part east of Water St. same as
Book MR-Vol. 18-Page 546
1847) Book D-Vol. 64-Page 200
Edwards S. Simmons (lumber merchant) Only the part east of Water St. same as
Book MR-Vol. 18-Page 546
(1847-1850) Book D-Vol. 64-Page 200
John M. Mitchell (1850-1867) Book GWC-Vol. 63-Page 490
The lot now only extends east to
Edward B. McClees (1867-1879) Book JTO -Vol.96-Page 368
Jennett, Rawle, and Delaware Ave.
113’10” Anna and Elizabeth McClees (1879-1892) By Will Between Water and Delaware Ave.
Langston Lots
Henry Dubois (1892-1892) Book TG-Vol. 226-Page 151 Between Water and Delaware Ave.
Pennsylvania Railroad Company (1892-1892) Book TG-Vol. 219-Page 411 Between Water and Delaware Ave.
9’-10’ Wood Street c. 1737 Wood Street established taking land from both Porteus and Jennett lots
Porteus Lot James Porteus (shipwright) (1690-1743) Patent

(Original lot was 20’ Will Book F-Vol. 22-Page 24; Deed
20’ to Joseph Fox (1743-1791)
reduced to 12’2” c. 1737 Book H-Vol. 3-Page 505
12’2”
when Wood Street Joseph Fox (1760-1791) Patent Book AA-Vol. 12-358
established) Samuel M. Fox (1791-1808) Book D-Vol. 38-Page 159
John Colley (1691-1693) Patent Book A -Vol. 2-Page 363
30’ Colley Lot James Porteus (1693-1743) Mentioned in recitation
Will Book F-Vol. 22-Page 24; Deed
Joseph Fox (1743-1791)
Book H-Vol. 3-Page 505

B.5

Joseph Fox (1760-1791) Patent Book AA-Vol. 12-358
Samuel M. Fox (1791-1808) Book D-Vol. 38-Page 159
The original lot was 100’ wide and was
100’ Rakestraw Lot (Original) William Rakestraw (1690-1710) Patent Book A-Vol. 4-Page 50 subsequently subdivided into a 50’, 15’,
25’ and 10’ lots.
Rakestraw Lot Subdivisions
William Rakestraw (1710-1710) Book I-Vol. 15-Page 7
Rakestraw Lot (Northern
50’ John Morton (shipwright) (1710-1710) Book I-Vol. 15-Page 7
half)
Michael Hulings (shipwright) (1729-1775) Book I-Vol. 13 -Page 437
Rakestraw Lot (Middle-
15’ Michael Hulings (shipwright) (1757-1775) Book I-Vol. 13-Page 394
North)
William E. Hulings (1781-1791) Will Book S-Page 20
Rakestraw Lot (North & Joseph Cowperthwaite (1791-1791) Book D-Vol. 25-Page 343
65’
Middle-North) Joseph Cowperthwaite (1791-1816) Book D-Vol. 32-Page 203
William West (1810-1851) Book IC-Vol. 25 -Page 4
William Rakestraw (1710-1772) Book D-Vol. 67-Page 202
Bevan Rakestraw (1772-1772) William Rakestraw's Will
Rakestraw Lot (Middle-
25’ John Fairman (1772-1810) Will Book P-Page 319
South)
George Halberstadt (1791-1810) Book IC-Vol. 07-Page 651
William West (1816-1816) Book IH-Vol. 05-Page 722
James West (1698-1702) Book D-Vol. 14-Page 371
Administratrix of James West
Charles West (1702-1747) estate, Book of Administrations-
10’ Rakestraw Lot (South) Vol. A-Page 344
Re-patents land in 1791: Book D-Vol.
William West (1791-1851) Book D-Vol. 67-Page 205
67-Page 202
James West (1689-1701) Patent Book A-Vol. 1-Page 311
100’ West Lot (Original) Administratrix of James West
Prudence West (1701-1702) estate, Book of Administrations-
Vol. A-Page 344

B.6

1735 Takes full ownership of the land
By the will of Prudence West, Will
Charles West (1702-1747) from the Penns - Deed Book D-Vol. 20-
Book B-Page 203
Page 27
West Lot Subdivisions
Re-patenting land he occupies.
Southernmost 40’ of West Lot (Middle)
70’ West Lot (North) and northern 30’ of West Lot (North),
William West (1791-1850) Book D-Vol. 67-Page 205
does not include the 10’ of the
Rakeshaw Lot (South) which is done
separately.
West Lot North Subdivisions
West Lot (North) - includes the 10’
Rakestraw Lot (South) and 30’ of the
James West Jr. (1761-1779) Will Book M-Vol. 143-Page 254
northern portion of the original West
40’ West Lot (North)
Lot
8’ of the south part of the lot is part of
William West (1779-1851) Book I-Vol. 17-Page 218
an alley
16’ Alley established in will 8’ from
each adjoining parcel. Eight feet on the
16’ West Lot (Alley) Charles & James West (1761) Will Book M-Vol. 143-Page 254 south side of the parcel belonging to
James and 8’ on the north side of the
40’ lot belonging to Charles.
8’ of the north part of the lot is part of
Charles West (1761- pre. 1779) Will Book M-Vol. 143-Page 254
an alley
The land originally given to James’s
James West (around 1779) Book I-Vol. 17-Page 218 brother Charles, who died prior to
40’ West Lot (Middle)
1779.
This lot is part of the re-patenting of
William West (1779-1851) Book I-Vol. 17-Page 218 land by William West in 1791, Book D-
Vol. 67-Page 205
Charles West Jr. (1747-1761) Book D-Vol. 16-Page 386 A.K.A. Charles R. West
Joseph Bacon and Wife Sarah Bacon (1824-
30’ West Lot (South) Book GWR-Vol. 1-Page 333
1829)
Charles W. Bacon (1829-1858) By will?

B.7

Joseph Bacon (1858-1898) Book ADB-Vol. 31-Page 430
Benjamin Carskaddon (1904-1904) Book WSV-Vol. 331-Page 382
Pennsylvania Railroad Company (1904-1909) Book WSV-Vol. 348-Page 321
By deed partition 1047, and Sherriff's
William West Heirs (1851-1873) Book D-Vol. 67-Page 205
Deed Y 396
Edward Browning and James Simpson (1873- By deed partition 1047, and Sherriff's
West Lot, Rakestraw Lot, Book D-Vol. 67-Page 205
215’ 1873) Deed Y 396
Colley Lot, Porteus Lot
Delaware Ave. Market Company of
Book FTW-Vol. 37-Page 381
Philadelphia (1873-1889)
Pennsylvania Railroad Company (1889-1909) Book GGP-Vol. 468-Page 301

B.8
Figure 8.1. Vine Street lot properties c. 1695

B.9

B.10

B.11

B.12
Figure 8.5. Vine Street lot properties c. 1766 (Samuel Shoemaker swapped lots with the Proprietors and Callowhill
Street moved north).

B.13

B.14

B.15

B.16

B.17

B.18

B.19

B.20
Appendix C. Context Percent Contribution Tables

C.1
Figure 8.13. Context 9, Percent Contribution

C.1

C.2

C.3

C.4

C.5

C.6

C.7

C.8

C.9
Appendix D. Artifact Inventory

D.1
Object Manufacturing Artifact of Weight

Context Trench Unit Fea Catalog FS Depth (ft) Count H/P Group Class and Material Object and Part Species Ware Decoration Decoration Color and Motif Mends Base Rim/Finish Condition Comments Date Range References
Color Technique Note (g)
6 1 1 30.001 4.001 0.47-1.34 Bd 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Indeterminate Vertebra of a medium mammal. 13.80
Possible metatarsal or
6 1 1 30.002 4.002 0.47-1.34 Bd 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Indeterminate metacarpal bone of a medium 5.00
sized mammal.
Possible long bone fragment of
6 1 1 30.003 4.003 0.47-1.34 Bd 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Indeterminate 2.40
a medium sized mammal.
No visible decoration.
Ceramic: Refined
6 1 1 30.004 4.004 0.47-1.34 Bd 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Base Sherd Pearlware Indeterminate Organically stained and heavy 1775-1840 Azizi et al 1996 2.90
Earthenware
usewear on one side.
6 1 1 30.005 4.005 0.47-1.34 Bd 1 Historic Household Glass: Non-Lead Glass Indeterminate: Body Sherd Colorless Indeterminate Flat body sherd. 2.10
Container Glass: Body Curved body sherds. Sherds do
6 1 1 30.006 4.006 0.47-1.34 Bd 2 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Amber Indeterminate 4.20
Sherd not mend.
6 1 1 30.007 4.007 0.47-1.34 Bd 2 Historic Architectural Glass: Common Glass Window Glass: Fragment Aqua, Light 3.60
Too rusted to determine
6 1 1 30.008 4.008 0.47-1.34 Bd 1 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Fragment Indeterminate Rusted 23.00
manufacturing technique.
Footring,
Painted decoration on interior;
Ceramic: Refined Free- Organically
9 1 3 31.001 2.001 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Saucer: Base/Body Sherd Pearlware Painted Earth Tone Colors: Floral X organically stained on interior 1795-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 15.70
Earthenware Standing Stained
and exterior.
Wedge
Brown painted line under
interior rim; floral painted
Ceramic: Refined Organically
9 1 3 31.002 2.002 app. 3.7 3 Historic Household Saucer: Rim Sherd Pearlware Painted Earth Tone Colors: Floral decoration under it. Sherds do 1795-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 5.40
Earthenware Stained
not mend but could belong to
the same vessel.
Brown painted band visible on
Ceramic: Refined Teaware, General: Rim Organically interior and exterior of rim.
9 1 3 31.003 2.003 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Pearlware Painted Brown: Indeterminate 1795-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 2.30
Earthenware Sherd Stained Likely a tea cup or small
bowl/breakfast cup.
Ceramic: Refined Teaware, General: Body
9 1 3 31.004 2.004 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Pearlware Painted Earth Tone Colors: Indeterminate Likely either a saucer or tea cup. 1795-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 1.20
Earthenware Sherd
Ceramic: Refined Teaware, General: Body
9 1 3 31.005 2.005 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Pearlware Painted Earth Tone Colors: Floral Likely a tea cup. 1795-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 0.60
Earthenware Sherd
Likley part of a tea cup or small
Ceramic: Refined Teaware, General: Body Organically bowl/breakfast cup. Sherds do
9 1 3 31.006 2.006 app. 3.7 2 Historic Household Pearlware Painted Earth Tone Colors: Indeterminate 1795-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 3.60
Earthenware Sherd Stained not mend but could belong to
the same vessel.
Ceramic: Refined Organically Feather edged creamware rim. Miller et al 2000 pg. 12,
9 1 3 31.007 2.007 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Plate: Rim Sherd Creamware Indeterminate 1762-1800 8.20
Earthenware Stained Heavily stained. www.jefpat.org
Unidentified handle fragment;

Ceramic: Refined Organically heavily stained. Likely belonged
9 1 3 31.008 2.008 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Handle Pearlware Indeterminate 1775-1840 Azizi et al 1996 11.50
Earthenware Stained to a medium/large sized
hollowware.
Blue and brown banded around
the rim. Under the bands there
Ceramic: Refined Hollowware: Body/Rim Organically
9 1 3 31.009 2.009 app. 3.7 2 Historic Household Pearlware Dipt Mocha w/ self X is a tan solid color field with a 1790-1860 www.jefpat.org 4.20
Earthenware Sherd Stained
mocha/dendritic pattern visible.
Sherds mend.
Single brown band visible.
Ceramic: Refined Possibly engine turned or
9 1 3 31.010 2.010 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Pearlware Dipt Brown: Banded 1775-1860 Azizi et al 1996, www.jefpat.org 0.60
Earthenware rouletted, but sherd is too small
to identify specifically.
Ceramic: Refined Organically No decoration visible; heavily www.jefpat.org, Miller et al 2000 pg.
9 1 3 31.011 2.011 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Plate: Rim Sherd Creamware Indeterminate Bath 1775-1820 4.00
Earthenware Stained stained. Bath rim. 12
Ceramic: Refined Organically No decoration visible; heavily

9 1 3 31.012 2.012 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Plate: Rim Sherd Creamware Indeterminate Scalloped 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 1.20
Earthenware Stained stained. Scalloped rim.
No decoration visible.
Ceramic: Refined
9 1 3 31.013 2.013 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Plate: Body Sherd Creamware Indeterminate Marly/cavetto sherd from a 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 2.00
Earthenware
plate.
Flat base sherd with no footring
Ceramic: Refined Organically remaining. No decoration
9 1 3 31.014 2.014 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Plate: Base Sherd Creamware Indeterminate 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 5.10
Earthenware Stained visible. Obvious use wear
present and heavily stained.
Ceramic: Refined Organically No decoration visible; multiple
9 1 3 31.015 2.015 app. 3.7 8 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Creamware Indeterminate 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 9.50
Earthenware Stained vessels represented.
Footring, Large hollowware base; possibly
Ceramic: Refined Hollowware: Base/Body Free- Organically a chamber pot base. Heavily
9 1 3 31.016 2.016 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Creamware Indeterminate 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 23.40
Earthenware Sherd Standing Stained stained. No decoration visible.
Round Some kiln damage visible.
Unidentified body sherd from a
Salt Glazed, Gray/Buff Albany-Type Miller et al 2000 pg. 10, Azizi et al
9 1 3 31.017 2.017 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Hollowware: Body Sherd Gray Brown, Dark: medium/large-sized 1805-1940 34.10
Bodied Slip 1996
hollowware.

D.2

Likely a tea or coffee pot sherd,
or sugar bowl sherd. There is a
ledge for a lid visible. Rouletted
Ceramic: Refined Teaware, General: Body Engine Turned: bands visible just under the Hawkins 1999, Rickard & Carpentier
9 1 3 31.018 2.018 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Red Bodied Geometric Pattern X 1760-1830 8.30
Earthenware Sherd Rouletted ledge with geometric engine 2004
turned decoration under it.
Small amount of kiln damage
visible on the interior.
Likely sherds belonging to a
large jar. Dark brown glaze on
Ceramic: Coarse Food Storage, General: Lead Glazed:
9 1 3 31.019 2.019 app. 3.7 2 Historic Household Redware Brown, Dark: interior; unglazed exterior. 99.20
Earthenware Body/Rim Sherd Single Glazed
Sherds do not mend but likely
belong to the same vessel.
Slip 6 wavy yellow slip lines visible
Ceramic: Coarse Yellow & Green: Trailed Slip w/
9 1 3 31.020 2.020 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Dish: Body Sherd Redware Decorated: X with copper blotching on top of 1870 77.70
Earthenware Copper Blotches
Single Glazed them.
This sherd is glazed on the
Dark Patches
Ceramic: Coarse exterior and is unglazed on the
9 1 3 31.021 2.021 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware in Glaze: Single Brown, Dark: Blotched 10.00
Earthenware interior. Typically it is the
Glazed
opposite.
Molded Thin-bodied hollowware sherd
Ceramic: Coarse
9 1 3 31.022 2.022 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Pattern: Brown, Dark: Indeterminate Reduced with a molded band visible. 5.00
Earthenware
Double Glazed Sherd paste is slightly reduced.
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Thin-bodied rim sherd; paste is
9 1 3 31.023 2.023 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Rim Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: Reduced 1.40
Earthenware Double Glazed reduced.
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Rim is much thicker than the
9 1 3 31.024 2.024 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Rim Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: 2.90
Earthenware Double Glazed sherd in FS 2.23.
Thin-bodied sherds; sherds do
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed:
9 1 3 31.025 2.025 app. 3.7 2 Historic Household Hollowware: Rim Sherd Redware Black: not mend but likely belong to 5.00
Earthenware Double Glazed
the same vessel.
Lead Glazed:
Ceramic: Coarse
9 1 3 31.026 2.026 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Interior Black: 1.80
Earthenware
Spalled
Lead Glazed:
Ceramic: Coarse
9 1 3 31.027 2.027 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Redware Exterior Brown, Dark: 1.00
Earthenware
Spalled
No decoration visible; small
9 1 3 31.028 2.028 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Indeterminate: Base Sherd Porcelain, Hard Paste Indeterminate base sherd. Likely a teaware of 2.10
some kind.
Nanking shaded trellis,
spearhead, and dumbbell rim
pattern on interior. There is a
painted pattern on the exterior
but it is unidentified. There is a
Painted: brown/yellow overglazed
Porcelain, Chinese
9 1 3 31.029 2.029 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Tea Cup: Body/Rim Sherd Molded Blue: Other Scalloped painted line on top of the rim. 1765-1820 Madsen & White 2011 pg. 102 4.50
Export
Pattern Body is molded with light ribs.
Dates are based on the dates

for the Naking shaded trellis,
form.
pattern on interior. Not enough
of the central pattern remains
to identify it. There is a light
Footring, brown overglazed painted line
Painted:
Saucer: Base/Body/Rim Porcelain, Chinese Free- on top of the rim. .
9 1 3 31.030 2.030 app. 3.7 3 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Painted, Blue & Light Brown: Other Scalloped 1765-1820 Madsen & White 2011 pg. 102 26.70
Sherd Export Standing
Overglaze
Wedge Dates based on the dates for
the Naking shaded trellis,
spearhead, & dumbbell rim
form. Two sherds mend but all
three likely belong to the same
vessel.
Not enough of central pattern
remains to identify it, but it is
likely a pavilion landscape. The
spearhead & dumbbell portion
of a Naking shaded trellis,
spearhead, & dumbbell rim
Footring,
pattern is present.
Porcelain, Chinese Free-
9 1 3 31.031 2.031 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Saucer: Base/Body Sherd Painted Blue: Other Scalloped 19.70
Export Standing
Since the entire rim pattren
Wedge
isn't present, no dates are
given. For reference, the Naking
shaded trellis, spearhead, &
dumbbell rim pattern dates to
1765-1829 (Madsen & White
1999:102).

D.3

Plate features a shaded trellis
Tooled Foot,
rim border. Not enough of the
Porcelain, Chinese Wedge-
9 1 3 31.032 2.032 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Plate: Base/Body Sherd Painted Blue: Indeterminate central design remains to 15.90
Export Shaped Foot
identify pattern but it is likely a
Ring
Naking style pavillion landscape.
Likely a saucer or small bowl.
Not enough of the decoration
Teaware, General: Porcelain, Chinese
9 1 3 31.033 2.033 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Painted Blue: Indeterminate remains to identify the pattern 3.10
Body/Rim Sherd Export
but it looks like a landscape
pattern.
Small sherd; not enough of
Porcelain, Chinese
9 1 3 31.034 2.034 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Hollowware: Body Sherd Painted Blue: Indeterminate decoration remains to identify 0.70
Export
pattern.
Footring,
Porcelain, Chinese Free- Not enough of decoration
9 1 3 31.035 2.035 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Hollowware: Base Sherd Painted Blue: Indeterminate 6.30
Export Standing remains to identify pattern.
Square
Likely a tea cup. The paint is so
Teaware, General: Rim Porcelain, Chinese Painted,
9 1 3 31.036 2.036 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Indeterminate: Neo-Classical Style Scalloped degraded; actual color cannot 1765-1810 Madsen & White 2011 pg. 116 0.40
Sherd Export Overglaze
be determined.
Lightly molded; possibly with
Ceramic: Refined Teaware, General: Molded Organically scrolls. Sherd looks like a later
9 1 3 31.037 2.037 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Whiteware Indeterminate 1815 3.90
Earthenware Body/Rim Sherd Pattern Stained whiteware. Likely a tea cup.
Heavily stained.
9 1 3 31.038 2.038 app. 3.7 5 Historic Architectural Glass: Common Glass Window Glass: Fragment Aqua 14.20
Likely a wine glass or champage

Mouth Blown, Organically
9 1 3 31.039 2.039 app. 3.7 2 Historic Household Glass: Lead Stemware: Body Sherd Colorless w/ self flute. Very heavily stained. 29.20
General Stained
Sherds mend.
Thin, curved sherds. Could be
lamp glass or container glass.
9 1 3 31.040 2.040 app. 3.7 4 Historic Indeterminate Glass: Non-Lead Glass Indeterminate: Body Sherd Colorless Indeterminate 4.30
Sherds do not mend but could
belong to the same object.
"7-up" green colored bottle
sherd embossed with the
Green, Mold Blown, "registered" mark ("R" inside
9 1 3 31.041 2.041 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Bottle: Body Sherd Embossed Other 1946 4.00
Bright Machine circle). The mark was originally
introduced as part of the
Trademark Act of 1946.
Container Glass: Body
9 1 3 31.042 2.042 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Aqua Indeterminate Small, thin, curved sherd. 0.60
Sherd
Unidentified sherd; very
9 1 3 31.043 2.043 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Indeterminate: Body Sherd Amber Indeterminate Patinated 0.50
degraded.
Curved sherds; heavily
9 1 3 31.044 2.044 app. 3.7 3 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Olive Indeterminate Patinated patinated. Likely bottle glass. 10.60
Sherd
Sherds do not mend.
One piece is .25" thick and the
9 1 3 31.045 2.045 app. 3.7 2 Historic Architectural Glass: Non-Lead Glass Plate Glass: Fragment Colorless 21.90
other is .20" thick.
Ceramic: Refined Unglazed clay pipe stems. Not
9 1 3 31.046 2.046 app. 3.7 2 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Stem White Ball Clay 2.90
Earthenware charred. (5/64 dia.)
Ceramic: Refined Unglazed clay pipe stems.
9 1 3 31.047 2.047 app. 3.7 1 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Stem White Ball Clay Charred 1.10
Earthenware Slightly charred. (5/64 dia.)
Exterior of pipe
Ceramic: Refined
9 1 3 31.048 2.048 app. 3.7 1 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Stem White Ball Clay Glazed Black: glazed/enameled in a lustre-like 1.10
Earthenware
glaze. (5/64 dia.)
9 1 3 31.049 2.049 app. 3.7 2 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Hinge Oyster 104.20
9 1 3 31.050 2.050 app. 3.7 0 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Fragment Clam, Quahog N=2 5.60
Flat metal strap. Does not look
9 1 3 31.050 2.050 app. 3.7 1 Historic Indeterminate Metal: Iron Strap: Fragment Indeterminate Rusted curved enough to be a barrel 74.50
strap.
Large spike with wood still
adhered to it. Too rusted to
9 1 3 31.051 2.051 app. 3.7 1 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Spike: Complete Hand Wrought Rusted 1890 109.40
determine if it is an early or
later wrought spike.
Too rusted to determine if they
9 1 3 31.052 2.052 app. 3.7 2 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Complete Hand Wrought Rusted 1890 19.50
are early or later wrought nails.
Nails are likely hand-headed
9 1 3 31.053 2.053 app. 3.7 2 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Complete Square Rusted and they are bent, so they could 13.40
be made of wrought iron.
Nail head is completely rusted.
9 1 3 31.054 2.054 app. 3.7 1 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Complete Wire Rusted 1880 67.20
Large nail.
Rib fragment from a large
Unidentified mammal, probably cow or
9 1 3 31.055 2.055 app. 3.7 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Rib: Fragment 40.20
Mammal horse. No cut/butcher marks
visble.
Bone fragment from a large
Unidentified mammal, probably cow or
9 1 3 31.056 2.056 app. 3.7 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment 20.20
Mammal horse. No cut/butcher marks
visble.

D.4

4th tarsal from a large mammal,
Unidentified
9 1 3 31.057 2.057 app. 3.7 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Tarsal: Complete probably a cow. No cut or 81.30
Mammal
butcher marks visible.
Calcaneus from a large
Unidentified
9 1 3 31.058 2.058 app. 3.7 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Calcaneus: Complete mammal, probably a cow. No 156.30
Mammal
cut or butcher marks visible.
Bone fragments from a juvenile
Unidentified
9 1 3 31.059 2.059 app. 3.7 2 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment animal. Probably a medium- 17.80
Mammal
sized mammal.
Bone fragments from a
Unidentified
9 1 3 31.060 2.060 app. 3.7 2 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment medium-sized mammal. No cut 50.40
Mammal
or butcher marks visible.
Rib fragment from a medium-
Unidentified
9 1 3 31.061 2.061 app. 3.7 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Rib: Fragment sized mammal. No cut or 5.40
Mammal
butcher marks visible.
Unidentified Bone fragment with saw marks
9 1 3 31.062 2.062 app. 3.7 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment 8.70
Mammal visible.
9 1 3 31.063 2.063 app. 3.7 2 Organic Indeterminate Flora: Wood Wood Fragment Indeterminate 60.40
9 1 3 31.064 2.064 app. 3.7 10 Organic Indeterminate Flora: Wood Wood Fragment Indeterminate 462.60
21 1 32.001 7.001 0.35-0.68 2 Historic Indeterminate Flora: Wood Wood Fragment Very small wood fragments 0.10
Small curved body fragments

Ceramic: Refined
21 1 32.002 7.002 0.35-0.68 2 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Pearlware Dipt Brown: Banded Burned with brown band on the 1775-1860 Azizi et al 1996, www.jefpat.org 0.90
Earthenware
exterior, pieces do not mend
Curved body fragment with
Ceramic: Refined painted blue decoration
21 1 32.003 7.003 0.35-0.68 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Pearlware Painted Blue: 1775-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 1.00
Earthenware partially visible, not enough to
determine pattern
Pearlware body fragment with
Ceramic: Refined no decoration visible, bottom
21 1 32.004 7.004 0.35-0.68 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Pearlware Indeterminate Burned 1774-1840 Azizi et al 1996 1.40
Earthenware part of a rim, top of the rim not
present, burned
Ceramic: Refined Very small whiteware fragment,
21 1 32.005 7.005 0.35-0.68 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Whiteware 1815 0.40
Earthenware no decoration visible
Indeterminate: Stained fragments, no
Ceramic: Refined
21 1 32.006 7.006 0.35-0.68 2 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Pearlware/Whiteware Exterior Stained decoration visible, pieces do not 1.70
Earthenware
Spalled mend, spalled on one side
21 1 32.007 7.007 0.35-0.68 4 Historic Architectural Glass: Common Glass Window Glass: Fragment Aqua 11.00
Container Glass: Body Small curved fragments, pieces
21 1 32.008 7.008 0.35-0.68 3 Historic Household Glass: Non-Lead Glass Colorless Indeterminate 2.70
Sherd do not mend
21 1 32.009 7.009 0.35-0.68 1 Historic Household Glass: Non-Lead Glass Indeterminate: Fragment Colorless Indeterminate Small flat colorless fragment 1.10
Two rib bones from a possibly
29 2 40.001 1.001 app. 1.2-2.4 2 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Indeterminate 5.30
medium sized mammal.
Vertebra of a possibly medium
sized mammal.
Metapodial bone of a medium
sized mammal.
Ceramic: Coarse Hollowware: Base/Body Lead Glazed: Pedestaled
29 2 40.004 1.004 app. 1.2-2.4 1 Historic Household Redware Brown, Dark: Round base/body sherd 14.90
Earthenware Sherd Double Glazed Foot
Ceramic: Refined Lead Glazed:
29 2 40.005 1.005 app. 1.2-2.4 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Base Sherd Red Bodied Brown, Dark: Lead glaze on interior. 10.50
Earthenware Single Glazed
Wide guttered rim. Wavy green
trailed slip line inside interior
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse Green, Yellow: Trailed Slip w/ Copper gutter and one striaght yellow
29 2 40.006 1.006 app. 1.2-2.4 2 Historic Household Dish/Pan: Rim Sherd Redware Decorated: w/ self Guttered X 1870 9.10
Earthenware Blotches trailed slip line on interior rim.
Lead Glazed
Single glazed on interior Wash
on exterior.
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Obvious Lead glazed on interior. Heavy
29 2 40.007 1.007 app. 1.2-2.4 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Base Sherd Redware Brown: 7.40
Earthenware Single Glazed Use Wear use wear apparent on interior.
Lead glazed on interior, most of
29 2 40.008 1.008 app. 1.2-2.4 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Indeterminate: glaze has popped off leaving the 8.90
white slip underneath visible.
29 2 40.009 1.009 app. 1.2-2.4 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Indeterminate: Body Sherd White Salt Glazed Indeterminate No visible decoration. 1720-1785 www.jefpat.org 0.30
Ceramic: Refined
29 2 40.010 1.010 app. 1.2-2.4 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd White Ball Clay Small curved body sherd. 0.30
Earthenware
Cut nails, too rusted to identify
29 2 40.011 1.011 app. 1.2-2.4 3 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Fragment Cut Rusted 30.20
further.
29 2 40.012 1.012 app. 1.2-2.4 4 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Fragment Indeterminate Rusted 31.90
Small plank of wood with
29 2 40.013 1.013 app. 1.2-2.4 1 Historic Indeterminate Flora: Wood Wood Fragment evidence on one side of being 10.00
axe cut.
Femur of a medium sized

32 1 33.001 3.001 app. 3.7 1 Historic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Indeterminate 47.60
mammal. Butcher cut marks

D.5

visible on the anterior portion
of the bone shaft.
Vertebra of a large mammal

32 1 33.002 3.002 app. 3.7 1 Historic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Indeterminate 58.40
that has been sawed through.
32 1 33.003 3.003 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Base Sherd Redware Brown: Interior glazed. 5.20
Slip Two straight lines of yellow slip,
Ceramic: Coarse
32 1 33.004 3.004 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Pan: Rim Sherd Redware Decorated: Yellow: Trailed Slip Guttered one on interior rim and on 1870 7.50
Earthenware
Lead Glazed inside of gutter on interior rim.
Ceramic: Refined
32 1 33.005 3.005 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Pearlware Indeterminate No visible decoration. 1775-1840 Azizi et al 1996 2.60
Earthenware
Ceramic: Refined Very small portion of blue www.jefpat.org, Miller et al 2000 pg.
32 1 33.006 3.006 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Pearlware Printed Blue: Indeterminate 1803-1830 0.40
Earthenware printed motif visible on interior. 13
No visible decoration. Possible

Ceramic: Refined
32 1 33.007 3.007 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Flatware: Body Sherd Whiteware Indeterminate marley and cavetto poriton of a 1815 2.30
Earthenware
plate.
Square bottle. Embossed

Mouth blown, Pontil, Glass http://www.sha.org/bottle/bases.htm,
32 1 33.008 3.008 app. 3.7 1 Historic Household Glass: Non-Lead Glass Bottle: Base/Body Sherd Colorless Embossed Lettering Patinated lettering on all four sides: 1810-1865 23.00
Hinge Mold tipped www.sha.org/bottles
"BY.../KINGS.../ESSEN.../PEPE..."
32 1 33.009 3.009 app. 3.7 1 Historic Architectural Glass: Common Glass Window Glass: Fragment Aqua 2.10
Cut nail, too rusted at head to
32 1 33.010 3.010 app. 3.7 1 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Complete Cut Rusted 5.90
identify any further.
32 1 33.011 3.011 app. 3.7 1 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Fragment Indeterminate Rusted 1.40
Thick lead fragment that is oval
32 1 33.012 3.012 app. 3.7 1 Historic Indeterminate Metal: Lead Indeterminate: Fragment shaped and hollow but clamped 115.50
together on one side.
32 1 33.013 3.013 app. 3.7 4 Historic Personal Fauna: Leather Shoe/Boot Sole: Fragment Leather shoe sole missing heel. 52.10
Small complete child's shoe
32 1 33.014 3.014 app. 3.7 1 Historic Personal Fauna: Leather Shoe/Boot Sole: Complete 46.50
sole.
Vertebra fragment of a medium
51 1 34.001 5.001 1.34-2.0 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Indeterminate 3.10
sized mammal.
Small curved hollow bone,
51 1 34.002 5.002 1.34-2.0 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Indeterminate possibly long bone, of a 1.60
Flat bone fragments of a
mammal.
One curved line of yellow
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse trailed slip inside gutter of rim
51 1 34.004 5.004 1.34-2.0 1 Historic Household Pan: Rim Sherd Redware Decorated: Yellow: Trailed Slip Guttered 1870 17.30
Earthenware and one straight line of trailed
Lead Glazed
slip visible on interior body.
Slip Four straught lines of trailed slip
Ceramic: Coarse
51 1 34.005 5.005 1.34-2.0 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Redware Decorated: Yellow: Trailed Slip visible on interior body. Single 1870 5.70
Earthenware
Lead Glazed glazed on interior.
51 1 34.006 5.006 1.34-2.0 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Base Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: Interior glazed. 4.10
51 1 34.007 5.007 1.34-2.0 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: Thin, curved body sherd. 3.70
Ceramic: Refined
51 1 34.008 5.008 1.34-2.0 1 Historic Household Plate, 7": Rim Sherd Creamware Indeterminate Scalloped No visible decoration. 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 8.90
Earthenware
No visible decoratioin. Sherds
Footring,
do not mend but likely belong
Ceramic: Refined Free- Obvious
51 1 34.009 5.009 1.34-2.0 2 Historic Household Plate: Base Sherd Creamware Indeterminate to the same vessel. Orgainc 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 35.20
Earthenware Standing Use Wear
staining. Heavy use wear on
Round
interior.
No visible decoration. Small
Ceramic: Refined Unidentified Refined curved body sherds. Heavy
51 1 34.010 5.010 1.34-2.0 2 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Indeterminate 1.40
Earthenware Earthenware organic staining. Sherds do not
mend.
Small portion of scratch blue
motif visible on both sides of
sherd: interior has one thing
Noel Hume 2001 pg. 206,
51 1 34.011 5.011 1.34-2.0 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Hollowware: Body Sherd White Salt Glazed Scratch Blue Blue: Indeterminate X curved line visible; exterior has 1735-1778 0.40
www.jefpat.org
to adjacent curved lines with
repeating arrow-like motif
above them.
51 1 34.012 5.012 1.34-2.0 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Indeterminate: Body Sherd Porcelain, Hard Paste Indeterminate No visible decoration. 0.10
Container Glass: Body Mouth Blown,

51 1 34.013 5.013 1.34-2.0 1 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Green Slightly curved body sherd. 5.50
Sherd General
51 1 34.014 5.014 1.34-2.0 1 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Olive Curved body sherds. 1.30
Sherd General
Mouth Blown,
51 1 34.015 5.015 1.34-2.0 1 Historic Household Glass: Lead Indeterminate: Body Sherd Colorless Curved body sherd. 0.30
General

D.6

Ceramic: Refined Pipe stem, broken on both
51 1 34.016 5.016 1.34-2.0 1 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Stem White Ball Clay 1.20
Earthenware ends. (4/64 dia.)
51 1 34.018 5.018 1.34-2.0 2 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Fragment Indeterminate Rusted 12.50
51 1 34.901 5.901 1.34-2.0 1 Organic Food Related Flora: Shell Shell Fragment Cocos nucifera Coconut shell fragment. 15.20
Indeterminate mammal bone,

Unidentified
66 2 41.001 12.001 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Stained no cut/butcher marks present, 216.70
Mammal
stained with dark blotches
Small piece of wood, stained
66 2 41.002 12.002 2 Historic Indeterminate Flora: Wood Wood Fragment Stained with some black blotches, 3.40
flaking
Small piece of wood, stained
66 2 41.003 12.003 1 Historic Indeterminate Flora: Wood Wood Fragment Stained 7.20
with some black blotches
One fragment from the spiral
66 2 41.004 12.004 1 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Fragment 3.20
interior of a conch shell
Ceramic: Refined Very small pipe stem fragment,
66 2 41.005 12.005 1 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Stem White Ball Clay 0.80
Earthenware no decoration visible (5/64 dia.)
Rusted iron nail, hand-headed,
66 2 41.006 12.006 1 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Complete Indeterminate Rusted too rusted to determine 67.20
manufacture technique
Curved body fragment, glazed
interior, unglazed exterior,
Glass: Coarse Lead Glazed: small ledge visible on the
66 2 41.007 12.007 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Brown: Charred 29.00
Earthenware Single Glazed interior, probably near the rim,
no rim section present, slightly
charred on exterior
Small body fragment with small
Dark Patches
Glass: Coarse patches of dark glaze on the
66 2 41.008 12.008 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware in Glaze: Brown: Blotched 8.00
Earthenware interior, dark brown on the
Double Glazed
exterior, double glazed
Flared flat rim fragment, burned
Glass: Refined with small dark stained patches,
66 2 41.009 12.009 1 Historic Household Chamber Pot: Rim Sherd Whiteware Indeterminate Flare Burned 1815 12.50
Earthenware probably from a chamber pot,
no decoration visible
Indeterminate: Very small body fragment, no
Glass: Refined
66 2 41.010 12.010 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Pearlware/Whiteware Exterior decoration visible, spalled on 1805-1880 Miller et al 2000 pg. 13, Miller 1993 0.10
Earthenware
Spalled one side
Heavily burned body fragment
Glass: Coarse
66 2 41.011 12.011 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Redware Indeterminate Burned on the interior and exteriors, 7.80
Earthenware
unable to determine decoration
Flat tooled base with dark
Glass: Coarse Hollowware: Base/Body Lead Glazed: brown glazed exterior, interior
66 2 41.012 12.012 1 Historic Household Redware Brown, Dark: Charred 27.60
Earthenware Sherd Single Glazed is too charred to determine
decoration
Sherd has 2 stamped rosettes
and incised lines visible. Blue
Incised & painted on top of the stamped http://www.city-data.com/world-
66 2 41.013 12.013 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Hollowware: Body Sherd Gray Westerwald/Rhenish Stamped: Blue: Indeterminate X and incised decoration. 1682-1775 cities/Philadelphia-History.html, 24.70
Painted Probably a mug or small jug. www.jefpat.org
Likely either German-made or
early New York City.
Almost complete oyster shell
Shell Hinge: Almost
68 2 42.001 11.001 1 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Oyster Stained with hinge present, dark brack 52.20
Complete
staining on the exterior of shell
Cylindrical base fragment from
a bottle, shiver marks visible
near the base of the body,
straight-sided body partially
Mold Blown, Obvious
68 2 42.002 11.002 1 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Bottle: Base/Body Sherd Green Smooth Base visible, use wear on base, 77.90
Indeterminate Use Wear
smooth base, no air venting
marks visible, possible
embossed letter in the middle
of the base, but unable to read
Small sherd; no decoration
70 1 35.001 8.001 4.3-45 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Indeterminate: Body Sherd White Salt Glazed Indeterminate 1720-1785 www.jefpat.org 0.30
visible.
Probably creamware or
pearlware but the sherds are
Ceramic: Refined Unidentified Refined Organically either too burned or stained to
70 1 35.002 8.002 4.3-45 6 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Indeterminate 4.20
Earthenware Earthenware Stained identify ware type. No
decoration visible. Sherds do
not mend.
Probably creamware or
pearlware but the sherd is
either too burned or stained to
Ceramic: Refined Unidentified Refined Organically identify ware type. No
70 1 35.003 8.003 4.3-45 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Base Sherd Indeterminate 2.20
Earthenware Earthenware Stained decoration visible. Flat base
sherd with no footring
remaining. Obvious use wear
visible.

D.7

Footring,
Ceramic: Refined Free- Organically
70 1 35.004 8.004 4.3-45 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Base Sherd Pearlware Indeterminate No decoration visible. 1775-1840 Azizi et al 1996 1.70
Earthenware Standing Stained
Wedge
Large brush strokes, likely floral
Ceramic: Refined
70 1 35.005 8.005 4.3-45 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Pearlware Painted Blue: Indeterminate patterned. Dates based on the 1815-1830 www.jefpat.org 0.80
Earthenware
dates for large brush strokes.
Ceramic: Refined
70 1 35.006 8.006 4.3-45 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Rim Sherd Pearlware Painted Blue: Indeterminate 1775-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 0.10
Earthenware
Drinking Vessel: Base/Body Mouth Blown, Pontil, Glass Likely a shot glass or small
70 1 35.007 8.007 4.3-45 1 Historic Household Glass: Non-Lead Glass Colorless 29.60
Sherd General tipped tumbler.
Hand wrought nails generally
stop being used after 1830 but
were still made after cut nails
were introduced for use in
70 1 35.008 8.008 4.3-45 1 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Complete Hand Wrought Rusted 24.10
situations where nails needed
to be clinched or where the
stress may break a cut nail
(Wells 2000:321-322).
70 1 35.009 8.009 4.3-45 1 Historic Indeterminate Fauna: Leather Indeterminate: Fragment Unidentified leather fragment. 3.70
Heavily rusted iron fragment,
71 1 36.001 9.001 app. 4.5 1 Historic Indeterminate Metal: Iron Indeterminate: Fragment Indeterminate Rusted 67.10
flat on one side, heavy
Ceramic: Refined Pipe stem fragment, no
71 1 36.002 9.002 app. 4.5 1 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Stem White Ball Clay 2.40
Earthenware decoration visible (5/64 dia.)
Small body fragments, no
Ceramic: Refined Obvious
71 1 36.003 9.003 app. 4.5 2 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Pearlware/Whiteware Indeterminate decoration visible, pieces mend, 1805-1880 Miller et al 2000 pg. 13, MIller 1993 0.50
Earthenware Use Wear
use marks visible on interior
Large brick fragment with one
Ceramic: Coarse
82 1 17 37.001 10.001 4.5-4.91 1 Historic Architectural Brick, Bat: Fragment Orange Stained measureable side, very shipped, 930.50
Earthenware
dark staining in several places
Small wood fragment, very
82 1 17 37.002 10.002 4.5-4.91 1 Organic Indeterminate Flora: Wood Wood Fragment 0.80
light, flat on one side
Oyster shell fragment with
82 1 17 37.003 10.003 4.5-4.91 1 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Hinge: Fragment Oyster 12.60
hinge
82 1 17 37.004 10.004 4.5-4.91 0 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Fragment Clam n=1 small clam shell fragment 3.40
82 1 17 37.005 10.005 4.5-4.91 1 Historic Fuel Lithic: Coal Coal Fragment 2.30
Long bone, probably from a

Unidentified
82 1 17 37.006 10.006 4.5-4.91 1 Historic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment medium sized mammal, no 35.40
Mammal
butcher or cut marks visible
Unidentified Rib fragment, no butcher or cut
82 1 17 37.007 10.007 4.5-4.91 1 Historic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment 1.30
Mammal marks visible
Small indeterminate bone
Unidentified
82 1 17 37.008 10.008 4.5-4.91 1 Historic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment fragment, no butcher or cut 3.90
Mammal
marks visible
Rusted iron, right angle at one
end and a metal loop at the
82 1 17 37.009 10.009 4.5-4.91 1 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Latch: Complete Indeterminate Rusted other, probably a hook and eye 31.00
latch for a door, comes to a
point at one end
Rusted iron nails, one is bent at
82 1 17 37.010 10.010 4.5-4.91 2 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Complete Indeterminate Rusted one end, too rusted to 19.80
determine type
Small curved porcelain
fragment with stright rim, very
Hollowware: Body/Rim small painted leaves and two
82 1 17 37.011 10.011 4.5-4.91 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Porcelain, Hard Paste Painted Black: Indeterminate 0.60
Sherd horizontal lines visible on the
interior rim, one leaf visible on
exterior rim
Small body fragments, burned,
Ceramic: Refined
82 1 17 37.012 10.012 4.5-4.91 2 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Pearlware/Whiteware Indeterminate Burned no decoration visible, pieces do 1805-1880 Miller et al 2000 pg. 13, Miller 1993 0.90
Earthenware
not mend
Ceramic: Refined Very small curved fragment,
82 1 17 37.013 10.013 4.5-4.91 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Creamware Indeterminate 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 0.30
Earthenware thin,
Curved body fragment, pieces
82 1 17 37.014 10.014 4.5-4.91 2 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Olive Patinated do not mend, one piece is 7.10
Sherd General
heavily patinated
Round handle fragment from a
Salt Glazed, Gray/Buff
82 1 17 37.015 10.015 4.5-4.91 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Hollowware: Handle Gray stoneware vessel, orange 51.80
Bodied
interior
Curved body fragment with at
Ceramic: Refined Teaware, General: Body Molded least four rouletted lines with
82 1 17 37.016 10.016 4.5-4.91 1 Historic Household Red Bodied Rouletted 7.10
Earthenware Sherd Pattern repeating dots visible, small
ledge
Very small bone fragment, very
82 1 17 37.017 10.017 4.5-4.91 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Stained dark staining, no butcher or cut 0.70
marks visible

D.8

Large iron spike, top half of the
84 2 43.001 13.001 1 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Spike: Complete Cut Rusted spike is rusted with some wood 1790-1890 Wells 2000 pg. 323-325 120.00
present, tapers on two sides
Base and body of a cylindrical
Tooled Foot, hollowware, with dipt solid
Ceramic: Refined Hollowware: Base/Body Wedge- brown/orange decoration on
87 1 6 38.001 14.001 1 Historic Household Pearlware Dipt Brown-Orange: Indeterminate Burned 1775-1860 Azizi et al 1996, www.jefpat.org 8.90
Earthenware Sherd Shaped Foot the exterior, not enough to
Ring determine pattern, burned,
tooled wedge foot
Bone fragment from a large
104 3 2 45.001 21.001 0.37-1.35 Bd 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment mammal, no butcher or cut 226.60
marks visible
Shell Hinge: Almost Almost complete clam shell
104 3 2 45.002 21.002 0.37-1.35 Bd 1 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Clam 70.10
Complete with hinge present
Two shell fragments, both with
104 3 2 45.003 21.003 0.37-1.35 Bd 2 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Hinge: Fragment Oyster 34.70
hinges present
104 3 2 45.004 21.004 0.37-1.35 Bd 0 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Fragment Clam n=1 clam shell fragment 3.40
Bone fragments, no butcher or
cut marks visible
Unidentified Small bone fragment with
104 3 2 45.006 21.006 0.37-1.35 Bd 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment 5.80
Mammal butcher mark
104 3 2 45.007 21.007 0.37-1.35 Bd 1 Historic Fuel Lithic: Coal Coal Fragment Large coal fragment 115.90
104 3 2 45.008 21.008 0.37-1.35 Bd 1 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Complete Indeterminate Rusted Rusted iron nail, bent 7.60
Bent nail, some rust visible,
Rust
104 3 2 45.009 21.009 0.37-1.35 Bd 1 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Almost Complete Hand Wrought hand wrought, tapers on all four 1830 4.90
Stained
sides
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Fragment from a large handle,
104 3 2 45.010 21.010 0.37-1.35 Bd 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Handle Redware Brown: 10.60
Earthenware Double Glazed interior and exterior glazed
Small curved body fragments,
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: very dark brown glaze on the
104 3 2 45.011 21.011 0.37-1.35 Bd 2 Historic Household Hollowware: Handle Redware Brown, Dark: 6.50
Earthenware Double Glazed interior and exterior, pieces do
not mend
104 3 2 45.012 21.012 0.37-1.35 Bd 3 Historic Architectural Glass: Common Glass Window Glass: Fragment Aqua 2.10
104 3 2 45.013 21.013 0.37-1.35 Bd 1 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Olive Indeterminate Very small curved fragment 1.40
Sherd
Marley and covetto visible with
Porcelain, Chinese
104 3 2 45.014 21.014 0.37-1.35 Bd 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Plate: Body Sherd Painted Blue: Indeterminate a flower and several geometric 3.60
Export
patterns on the interior
Small whiteware fragments,
Ceramic: Refined
104 3 2 45.015 21.015 0.37-1.35 Bd 3 Historic Household Indeterminate: Fragment Whiteware pieces do not mend, no 1815 3.20
Earthenware
decoration visible, mostly flat
Ceramic: Refined Footring, Undercut base fragment, no
104 3 2 45.016 21.016 0.37-1.35 Bd 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Base Sherd Whiteware 1815 5.60
Earthenware Undercut decoration visible
Ceramic: Refined Small curved fragment with two
104 3 2 45.017 21.017 0.37-1.35 Bd 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Creamware Incised Lined 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 0.80
Earthenware parallel incised lines present
Small fragment from a pipe
Ceramic: Refined
106 3 46.001 18.001 2.35-2.80 1 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Stem White Ball Clay stem, no decoration visible 1.70
Earthenware
(5/64 dia.)
0.25-.35 Unidentified Bone fragment with no butcher
107 3 2 47.002 20.002 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment 27.40
Bd/2.6-3.1 Mammal or cut marks visible
0.25-.35
107 3 2 47.003 20.003 0 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Fragment n=1 5.00
Bd/2.6-3.1
0.25-.35
107 3 2 47.004 20.004 1 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Complete Cut Rusted Short nail, bent, hand-headed 2.40
Bd/2.6-3.1
0.25-.35 Ceramic: Coarse
107 3 2 47.005 20.005 1 Historic Activities Flower Pot: Body Sherd Redware Unglazed Curved unglazed body fragment 4.90
Bd/2.6-3.1 Earthenware
Very small fragment, dark
0.25-.35 Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed:
107 3 2 47.006 20.006 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: brown glaze on the interior and 1.00
Bd/2.6-3.1 Earthenware Double Glazed
exterior
Body fragments, glazed on the
107 3 2 47.007 20.007 2 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Brown: interior, unglazed exterior, 28.20
Bd/2.6-3.1 Earthenware Single Glazed
pieces do not mend
Very small curved fragment,
107 3 2 47.008 20.008 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Brown: Burned glazed on the interior and 0.80
Bd/2.6-3.1 Earthenware Single Glazed
exterior, burned
Very small tin glazed fragment, http://www.city-data.com/world-

0.25-.35 Ceramic: Refined
107 3 2 47.009 20.009 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Tin Glazed Painted Green, Blue: Indeterminate X green and blue painted 1682-1800 cities/Philadelphia-History.html, Azizi 0.20
decoration visible on one side et al 1996
0.25-.35 Ceramic: Refined Flat fragment, no decoration

107 3 2 47.010 20.010 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Fragment Whiteware Indeterminate 1815 1.80
Bd/2.6-3.1 Earthenware visible
Thin body fragements, curved,
107 3 2 47.011 20.011 2 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Pearlware Indeterminate pieces do not mend, no 1775-1840 Azizi et al 1996 0.70
decoration visible

D.9

Small curved rim fragments
107 3 2 47.012 20.012 2 Historic Household Indeterminate: Rim Sherd Pearlware Painted Blue: Other with blue lines along the 1775-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 0.70
interior rim, pieces do not mend
Small curved fragment with two
0.25-.35 Noel Hume 2001 pg. 206,
107 3 2 47.013 20.013 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Indeterminate: Body Sherd White Salt Glazed Scratch Blue Blue: scratched blue lines visible on 1735-1778 0.40
Bd/2.6-3.1 www.jefpat.org
the exterior
Small curved fragment with zig-
107 3 2 47.014 20.014 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Pearlware Painted Earth Tone Colors: Indeterminate zag brown line partially visible 1795-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 0.90
on the interior
0.25-.35 Ceramic: Refined Very small fragment with blue

107 3 2 47.015 20.015 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Pearlware/Whiteware Indeterminate Blue: 1805-1880 Miller et al 2000 pg. 13, Miller 1993 0.40
Bd/2.6-3.1 Earthenware decoration on one side
Thin body fragment with

0.25-.35 Salt Glazed, Gray/Buff sprigged floral motif on the
107 3 2 47.016 20.016 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Hollowware: Body Sherd Buff Sprigged Other X 1675-1750 www.jefpat.org 4.10
Bd/2.6-3.1 Bodied exterior, partially visible, Hohr
type stoneware
0.25-.35
107 3 2 47.017 20.017 3 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Window Glass: Fragment Aqua 3.60
Bd/2.6-3.1
Small cylindrical bottle base and
body, not enough of the base to
0.25-.35 Mouth Blown,
107 3 2 47.018 20.018 1 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Bottle: Base/Body Sherd Aqua see if there is a pontil scar, 1.20
Bd/2.6-3.1 General
straight-sided, no air venting
marks visible
Likely creamware or pearlware
2 SW Ceramic: Refined Unidentified Refined Footring,
107 3 48.001 24.001 0.07-0.46 Bd 1 Historic Household Flatware: Base Sherd Indeterminate Burned but sherd is too burned/stained 5.80
Ext. Earthenware Earthenware Undercut
to identify ware-type.
Likely creamware or pearlware
2 SW Ceramic: Refined Unidentified Refined
107 3 48.002 24.002 0.07-0.46 Bd 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Indeterminate Burned but sherd is too burned/stained 0.70
Ext. Earthenware Earthenware
to identify ware-type.
Either creamware, pearlware,
2 SW Ceramic: Refined Unidentified Refined or whiteware but sherd is too
107 3 48.003 24.003 0.07-0.46 Bd 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Rim Sherd Indeterminate Burned 0.70
Ext. Earthenware Earthenware burned/stained to identify
ware-type.
Lead Glazed:
2 SW Ceramic: Coarse
107 3 48.004 24.004 0.07-0.46 Bd 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Exterior Brown, Dark: 14.00
Ext. Earthenware
Spalled
2 SW
107 3 48.005 24.005 0.07-0.46 Bd 1 Historic Architectural Glass: Common Glass Window Glass: Fragment Aqua 0.60
Ext.
2 SW Unidentified
107 3 48.006 24.006 0.07-0.46 Bd 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Rib: Fragment No cut or butcher marks visible. 2.40
Ext. Mammal
2 SW
107 3 48.007 24.007 0.07-0.46 Bd 1 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Indeterminate Indeterminate Rusted Heavily rusted; unidentifiable. 85.80
Ext.
0.25-.35 Bone fragments withno butcher
107 3 2 47.001 20.001 8 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Indeterminate 13.40
Bd/2.6-3.1 or cut marks visible
Covetto and part of Marley
Ceramic: Refined
111 3 49.001 17.001 2.7-2.8 1 Historic Household Plate: Body Sherd Pearlware Printed Blue: Negative visible, negative printed flower 1815-1840 Azizi et al 1996, www.jefpat.org 3.30
Earthenware
on the interior
2 SW Completely blackened burned
112 3 50.001 25.001 0.46-0.69 Bd 2 Historic Household Flora: Wood Wood Fragment Burned 19.60
Ext. wood
2 SW Fragments with no cut or
112 3 50.002 25.002 0.46-0.69 Bd 6 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Indeterminate 47.30
Ext. butcher marks visible
2 SW Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Very small body fragment,
112 3 50.003 25.003 0.46-0.69 Bd 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Redware Brown: 0.60
Ext. Earthenware Double Glazed interior and exterior glazed
Body fragment with light gray
2 SW Salt Glazed, Gray/Buff Bristol-Type
112 3 50.004 25.004 0.46-0.69 Bd 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Hollowware: Body Sherd Gray: bristol slip on the exterior, 4.00
Ext. Bodied Slip
unglaze interior
2 SW Small body fragment, no
112 3 50.005 25.005 0.46-0.69 Bd 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Hollowware: Body Sherd Nottingham Type Indeterminate 1690-1800 www.jefpat.org 2.60
Ext. decoration visible
Heavily rusted piece of iron, to
2 SW
113 3 52.001 26.001 3.6-4.5 1 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Indeterminate Indeterminate Rusted rusted to identify, probably a 113.30
Ext.
large nail
2 SW Vertebrae: Almost Unidentified Vertebrae from a mammal, no
113 3 52.002 26.002 3.6-4.5 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone 22.60
Ext. Complete Mammal butcher or cut marks visible
2 SW Unidentified Bone fragments with several cut
113 3 52.003 26.003 3.6-4.5 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment 161.60
Ext. Mammal marks visible
Rib fragment, probably from a
2 SW Unidentified
113 3 52.004 26.004 3.6-4.5 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Rib: Fragment large mammal, rows of cut 53.00
Ext. Mammal
marks visible
2 SW Small bone fragments, no cut or
Ext. butcher marks visible
2 SW Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Curved body fragment, interior
113 3 52.006 26.006 3.6-4.5 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Brown: 4.40
Ext. Earthenware Double Glazed and exterior glazed
Small fragment with brown-
2 SW Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed:
113 3 52.007 26.007 3.6-4.5 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Redware Brown-Yellow: yellow glaze on the exterior, 2.60
Ext. Earthenware Single Glazed
interior unglazed
2 SW Small curved triangular piece of
113 3 52.008 26.008 3.6-4.5 1 Historic Indeterminate Metal: Indeterminate Indeterminate: Fragment Indeterminate 1.90
Ext. metal

D.10

Rim fragment with dark green
rim and the interior glazed with
2 SW Ceramic: Coarse Iberian Coarse Lead Glazed:
113 3 52.009 26.009 3.6-4.5 1 Historic Household Flatware: Rim Sherd Green: X green and small dark blotches, 6.60
Ext. Earthenware Earthenware Single Glazed
exterior is unglazed, possible
North Devon Gavel
Shell fragments with hinges
117 3 2 53.001 22.001 0.35-1.15 Bd 6 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Hinge: Fragment 188.10
present
117 3 2 53.002 22.002 0.35-1.15 Bd 0 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Fragment Oyster n=1 3.20
117 3 2 53.003 22.003 0.35-1.15 Bd 1 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Hinge: Fragment Clam Clam shell fragment with hinge 63.40
117 3 2 53.004 22.004 0.35-1.15 Bd 1 Historic Manufacturing Metal: Indeterminate Slag 14.60
117 3 2 53.005 22.005 0.35-1.15 Bd 2 Historic Manufacturing Glass: Common Glass Slag 30.30
Rusted iron nail, tapers on two
117 3 2 53.006 22.006 0.35-1.15 Bd 1 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Complete Cut Rusted 1790-1830 Wells 2000 pg. 323-325 7.30
sides, hand-headed
Two teeth fragments, one is
Unidentified
117 3 2 53.007 22.007 0.35-1.15 Bd 2 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Tooth: Fragment large, no butcher or cut marks 29.30
Mammal
visible
Unidentified Bone fragments with a cut mark
117 3 2 53.008 22.008 0.35-1.15 Bd 2 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment 116.60
Mammal visible on each
Unidentified Rib fragments, no butcher or
117 3 2 53.009 22.009 0.35-1.15 Bd 4 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Rib: Fragment 45.00
Mammal cut marks visible
Bone fragments with no
butcher or cut marks visible
117 3 2 53.011 22.011 0.35-1.15 Bd 0 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Fragment Clam n=2 2.20
117 3 2 53.012 22.012 0.35-1.15 Bd 6 Historic Architectural Glass: Common Glass Window Glass: Fragment Aqua 3.40
Container Glass: Body Heavily patinated, curved body
117 3 2 53.013 22.013 0.35-1.15 Bd 1 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Olive Indeterminate Patinated 20.10
Sherd fragment
Ceramic: Refined Pipe stem fragment, no
117 3 2 53.014 22.014 0.35-1.15 Bd 1 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Stem White Ball Clay 4.40
Pipe stem fragment, no
Ceramic: Refined
117 3 2 53.015 22.015 0.35-1.15 Bd 1 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Stem White Ball Clay Charred decoration visible, charred 1.60
Earthenware
interior
Pipe bowl fragment, no
Ceramic: Refined
117 3 2 53.016 22.016 0.35-1.15 Bd 1 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Bowl White Ball Clay Charred decoration visible, charred 2.90
Earthenware
inteiror
Tooled flat round base fragment
interior glazed exterior
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Tooled Foot,
117 3 2 53.017 22.017 0.35-1.15 Bd 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Base Sherd Redware Brown-Yellow: Stained unglazed, indeterminate 83.20
Earthenware Single Glazed Flat Base
material or staining corroded on
the interior
Tooled flat base, extend slightly
Ceramic: Coarse Hollowware: Base/Body Lead Glazed: Tooled Foot,
117 3 2 53.018 22.018 0.35-1.15 Bd 1 Historic Household Redware Brown: further than the body, interior 57.70
Earthenware Sherd Single Glazed Flat Base
glaze, exteiror unglazed
117 3 2 53.019 22.019 0.35-1.15 Bd 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: dark brown glaze on interior, 21.50
unglazed exterior
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: interior glazed, exterior
117 3 2 53.020 22.020 0.35-1.15 Bd 3 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Redware Brown: 13.90
Earthenware Single Glazed unglazed, pieces do not mend,
at least two vessels represented
Curved body fragments, pieces
117 3 2 53.021 22.021 0.35-1.15 Bd 2 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Brown: do not mend, interior and 13.80
exterior glazed
117 3 2 53.022 22.022 0.35-1.15 Bd 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: brown glazed interior and very 4.10
dark brown glazed exterior
Lead Glazed:
Ceramic: Coarse Very small curved fragment
117 3 2 53.023 22.023 0.35-1.15 Bd 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Fragment Redware Exterior Brown: 0.40
Earthenware interior glazed, exterior spalled
Spalled
Body fragment with wavy
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse surface, and at least three
117 3 2 53.024 22.024 0.35-1.15 Bd 1 Historic Household Flatware: Body Sherd Redware Decorated: Yellow-Green: Trailed Slip 1870 5.80
Earthenware yellow-green trailed slip lines
Single Glazed
visible
Small curved fragments, several
Ceramic: Refined Molded
117 3 2 53.025 22.025 0.35-1.15 Bd 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Red Bodied Other paralled molded lines on the 0.70
Earthenware Pattern
exterior
Curved fragment with tie-down
117 3 2 53.026 22.026 0.35-1.15 Bd 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: line on the exterior, interior and 3.40
exterior glazed
Lead Glazed: Possible North Devon fragment
Ceramic: Coarse
117 3 2 53.027 22.027 0.35-1.15 Bd 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Indeterminate Exterior Green: Indeterminate with exterior spalled and green 3.10
Earthenware
Spalled glazed interior
Reduced and overfied redware

117 3 2 53.028 22.028 0.35-1.15 Bd 2 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Brown, Yellow: Reduced fragments with yellow-brown 2.40
glaze on exterior and dark

D.11

brown on the interior, pieces do
not mend
Small base fragment with green

Ceramic: Coarse Green Glaze: glaze on interior with darker
117 3 2 53.029 22.029 0.35-1.15 Bd 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Base Sherd Buff Bodied X 4.70
Earthenware Single Glazed green blotches, buff bodied,
further research needed
yellow glazed exterior unglazed
Ceramic: Coarse British Buff-Bodied Lead Glazed:
117 3 2 53.030 22.030 0.35-1.15 Bd 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Yellow: interior, British Buff-Bodied 1670-1795 Azizi et al 1996 1.70
Earthenware Slipware Double Glazed
Slipware but no slip decoration
visible
http://www.city-data.com/world-
Ceramic: Refined Very small body fragment with
117 3 2 53.031 22.031 0.35-1.15 Bd 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Tin Glazed Painted Blue: Indeterminate 1682-1800 cities/Philadelphia-History.html, Azizi 0.50
Earthenware blue decoration on the interior
et al 1996
Saucer rim and body fragment,

117 3 2 53.032 22.032 0.35-1.15 Bd 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Saucer: Body/Rim Sherd White Salt Glazed Indeterminate 1720-1785 www.jefpat.org 2.90
Curved body fragment, no
117 3 2 53.033 22.033 0.35-1.15 Bd 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Indeterminate: Body Sherd White Salt Glazed Indeterminate 1720-1785 www.jefpat.org 3.20
decoration visible
Slip Only a small amount of slipped
2 SW Ceramic: Coarse British Buff-Bodied
117 3 55.001 27.001 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Decorated: Brown: Trailed Slip decoration remains. Beginning 1670-1795 Azizi et al 1996 7.80
Ext. Earthenware Slipware
Double Glazed of a handle present.
Interior glazed with a brownish-
2 SW Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: yellow lead glaze. Exterior
117 3 55.002 27.002 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Rim Sherd Redware Brown/Yellow: 7.40
Ext. Earthenware Single Glazed unglazed. Rim is slightly flared,
not quite everted.
2 SW Unidentified
117 3 55.003 27.003 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment No cut or butcher marks visible. 16.60
Ext. Mammal
2 SW Unidentified
117 3 55.004 27.004 2 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Cut marks visible. 64.50
Ext. Mammal
120 4 62.001 35.001 1.95-3.00 2 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Shell Coral: Fragment Coral 8.50
Shell Hinge: Almost
120 4 62.002 35.002 1.95-3.00 1 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Oyster Oyster shell with hinge present 27.20
Complete
Long bone, probabbly from a
Unidentified
120 4 62.003 35.003 1.95-3.00 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment large mammal, small cut marks 280.00
Mammal
visible
Unidentified Bone fragments with no cut or
Mammal butcher marks visible
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Curved body fragment, glazed
120 4 62.005 35.005 1.95-3.00 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Redware Brown: 4.10
Earthenware Single Glazed interior, unglazed exterior
Interior glazed, bulbous body,
small tooled flat pedestal base,
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Pedestaled
120 4 62.006 35.006 1.95-3.00 1 Historic Household Jar: Base/Body Sherd Redware Brown: Stained probably a jar base/body, black 132.50
Earthenware Single Glazed Foot
staining on several broken
edges
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Flared jar rim, interior glazed,
120 4 62.007 35.007 1.95-3.00 1 Historic Household Jar: Body/Rim Sherd Redware Brown: Flare 58.90
Earthenware Single Glazed exterior unglazed
Ceramic: Coarse Thick redware body fragment,
120 4 62.008 35.008 1.95-3.00 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Unglazed 53.90
Earthenware unglazed
Slip Curved body fragments, both
Ceramic: Coarse
120 4 62.009 35.009 1.95-3.00 2 Historic Household Flatware: Body Sherd Redware Decorated: Yellow: Trailed Slip have at least three yellow 1870 45.30
Earthenware
Single Glazed trailled slip lines visible
Dish with coggled rim, at least
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse four trailed wavy slip lines with
120 4 62.010 35.010 1.95-3.00 1 Historic Household Dish: Body/Rim Sherd Redware Decorated: Yellow: Trailed Slip Coggled 1870 75.30
Earthenware two yellow dot visible, not
Single Glazed
enough to get diameter
Slightly curved fragment with at
Slip least two yellow trailed slip
Ceramic: Coarse
120 4 62.011 35.011 1.95-3.00 1 Historic Household Flatware: Body Sherd Redware Decorated: Yellow: Trailed Slip Stained lines visible on the interior, 1870 11.20
Earthenware
Single Glazed exterior unglazed, darkened
with staining on the interior
Brown slip decoration, does not
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse British Buff-Bodied look trailed or combed,
120 4 62.012 35.012 1.95-3.00 1 Historic Household Flatware: Body Sherd Decorated: Brown: Indeterminate 1670-1795 Azizi et al 1996 13.00
Earthenware Slipware irregular blotches of brown,
Single Glazed
exterior unglazed
Ceramic: Coarse Curved body fragment, no
120 4 62.013 35.013 1.95-3.00 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Yellowware Indeterminate 1828-1940 www.jefpat.org, Azizi et al 1996 8.20
Earthenware decoration visible
Small curved fragment, blue
Ceramic: Refined
120 4 62.014 35.014 1.95-3.00 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Whiteware Printed Blue: Indeterminate printed on the interior with a 1815-1915 Azizi et al 1996 2.90
Earthenware
wheel or flower motif
Small rim and body fragment
Hollowware: Body/Rim Porcelain, Chinese Decal with a red a black flower on the
120 4 62.015 35.015 1.95-3.00 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Polychrome: Indeterminate 1.40
Sherd Export Overglaze exterior rim and a thin brown
line along the top of the rim

D.12

Ceramic: Refined Body fragment with no
120 4 62.016 35.016 1.95-3.00 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Whiteware Indeterminate 2.80
Ceramic: Refined Flat fragment from a base, no
120 4 62.017 35.017 1.95-3.00 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Base Sherd Creamware Indeterminate 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 11.90
Ceramic: Refined pieces do not mend, no
120 4 62.018 35.018 1.95-3.00 4 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Creamware Undecorated Stained 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 8.90
Earthenware decoration visible, black
staining on the broken edges
Smooth rim and curved body
fragments, no decoration
visible, pieces do not mend but
Ceramic: Refined Hollowware: Body/Rim
120 4 62.019 35.019 1.95-3.00 4 Historic Household Creamware Undecorated Stained probably from the same vessel, 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 39.20
Earthenware Sherd
some black staining on the
broken edges and parts of the
body
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse Decorated: Yellow & Green: Trailed Slip w/ Fragments of at least 4 wavy
122 4 63.001 16.001 3.15-4.00 1 Historic Household Dish/Pan: Body Sherd Redware 1870 6.80
Earthenware Exterior Copper Blotches slip lines visible.
Spalled
Unglazed on the interior; has a
Unidentified
122 4 63.002 16.002 3.15-4.00 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Indeterminate: Body Sherd Buff tan salt glaze/slip on the 27.30
Stoneware
exterior. Likely a hollowware.
2 SW Partial vertebra of a large
123 3 56.001 28.001 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Indeterminate 59.40
Ext. mammal.
Distal or proximal end of a long
2 SW
123 3 56.002 28.002 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Indeterminate bone from a medium sized 31.20
Ext.
mammal.
2 SW Fragments of long bone shafts
Ext. from medium sized mammals.
2 SW Possible scapula fragment of a
Ext. small mammal.
2 SW Small round bone fragment of a
Ext. medium sized mammal.
2 SW Very small long bone, possibly
Ext. belonging to a bird.
2 SW
123 3 56.007 28.007 3 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Hinge: Complete Oyster 73.30
Ext.
2 SW Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed:
123 3 56.008 28.008 2 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Brown: Sherds do not mend. 6.20
Ext. Earthenware Double Glazed
2 SW Ceramic: Refined
123 3 56.009 28.009 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Base Sherd Pearlware Indeterminate No visible decoration. 1775-1840 Azizi et al 1996 2.90
Ext. Earthenware
Tooled Foot,
2 SW Ceramic: Refined
123 3 56.010 28.010 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Base Sherd Whiteware Indeterminate Square Foot No visible decoration. 1815 2.30
Ext. Earthenware
Ring
2 SW
123 3 56.011 28.011 1 Historic Architectural Glass: Common Glass Window Glass: Fragment Aqua 0.90
Ext.
2 SW Rusted iron fragement attached
123 3 56.012 28.012 1 Historic Indeterminate Other: Composite Indeterminate: Fragment Rusted 53.70
Ext. to a fragment of brick.
2 SW Rusted fragments of iron in
123 3 56.013 28.013 2 Historic Indeterminate Metal: Iron Indeterminate: Fragment Rusted 73.10
Ext. varying shapes.
2 SW Badly burned and melted metal
123 3 56.014 28.014 3 Historic Indeterminate Metal: Indeterminate Indeterminate: Fragment Burned 50.50
Ext. fragments.
2 SW
124 3 57.001 29.001 0.6-0.83 Bd 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Hollowware: Body Sherd Nottingham Type Indeterminate X No decoration visible. 1690-1800 www.jefpat.org 3.50
Ext.
2 SW Ceramic: Refined Most of the glaze has spalled
124 3 57.002 29.002 0.6-0.83 Bd 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Base Sherd Tin Glazed Indeterminate 1682-1800 cities/Philadelphia-History.html, Azizi 7.30
Ext. Earthenware off.
et al 1996
2 SW Ceramic: Refined Glaze Not
124 3 57.003 29.003 0.6-0.83 Bd 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Tin Glazed Completely spalled. 1682-1800 cities/Philadelphia-History.html, Azizi 0.80
Ext. Earthenware Extant
et al 1996
2 SW Ceramic: Refined Does not appear to be charred.

124 3 57.004 29.004 0.6-0.83 Bd 1 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Stem 2.40
Ext. Earthenware (5/64 dia.)
2 SW
124 3 57.005 29.005 0.6-0.83 Bd 2 Historic Manufacturing Glass: Common Glass Manufacturing Debris 35.60
Ext.
2 SW
124 3 57.006 29.006 0.6-0.83 Bd 1 Organic Indeterminate Flora: Wood Charcoal Fragment Burned 0.20
Ext.
Unglazed interior; salt glazed
Hollowware: Base/Body Salt Glazed, Gray/Buff
132 3 58.001 30.001 2.65- 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Gray Reduced exterior. Paste is slightly 22.70
Sherd Bodied
reduced.
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse British Buff-Bodied
133 3 59.001 31.001 4.95-5.00 1 Historic Household Dish: Body/Rim Sherd Decorated: Brown: Trailed & Combed Slip Coggled X 1670-1795 Azizi et al 1996 7.80
Earthenware Slipware
Single Glazed

D.13

Pattern resembles a basket
Ceramic: Refined Hollowware: Base/Body Molded Pedestaled Rust weave. Two sherds mend but all www.jefpat.org, Miller et al 2000 pg.
145 5 71.001 32.001 3.2-3.45 10 Historic Household White Granite Indeterminate w/ self 1840-1930 84.70
Earthenware Sherd Pattern Foot Stained ten likely belong to the same 13
vessel.
Ceramic: Refined
145 5 71.002 32.002 3.2-3.45 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Yellowware Indeterminate No decoration visible. 1828-1940 www.jefpat.org, Azizi et al 1996 3.00
Earthenware
Tooled Foot,
Ceramic: Refined Pink glazed on interior and
145 5 71.003 32.003 3.2-3.45 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Base Sherd Victorian Majolica Colored Glaze Pink: Rounded 1850-1900 Katz-Marks, Mariann 1992 2.70
Earthenware exterior.
Foot Ring
Single gilded line visible under
145 5 71.004 32.004 3.2-3.45 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Saucer: Rim Sherd Porcelain, Hard Paste Gilding Gold: Lined 1850 2.90
interior rim.
145 5 71.005 32.005 3.2-3.45 4 Historic Architectural Glass: Common Glass Window Glass: Fragment Aqua Patinated 12.20
Lead Glazed:
Ceramic: Coarse Pipe, Sewer/Water: Pieces probably belong to the
145 5 71.006 32.006 3.2-3.45 2 Historic Architectural Interior Brown: 40.40
Earthenware Fragment same pipe.
Spalled
Ceramic: Refined
145 5 71.007 32.007 3.2-3.45 1 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Stem (5/64 dia.) 5.50
Earthenware
145 5 71.008 32.008 3.2-3.45 2 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Hinge Oyster 72.60
145 5 71.009 32.009 3.2-3.45 0 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Fragment Clam N=2 3.40
145 5 71.010 32.010 3.2-3.45 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Unidentified Bird No cut or butcher marks visible. 1.10
145 5 71.011 32.011 3.2-3.45 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Phalange, Foot: Complete Unidentified Bird No cut or butcher marks visible. 0.80
Nails are heavily rusted and still

have wood adheared to them.
Cannot identify manufacturing
technique.
Mouth Blown, Cylindrical large bottle neck. No
166 4 64.001 37.001 3.1-3.4 4 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Bottle: Neck Olive w/ self 75.40
General visible mold seams.
Porcelain, Chinese Very small body fragment, blue
167 4 65.001 39.001 4.1-4.7 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Indeterminate: Body Sherd Painted Blue: Indeterminate 0.20
Export printed pattern on the interior
167 4 65.002 39.002 4.1-4.7 0 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Fragment Clam n=1, very small fragment 0.60
167 4 65.004 39.004 4.1-4.7 1 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Olive Curved body fragment 11.70
Sherd General
Unidentified Fragments with no cut or
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Small curved fragment, glazed
Earthenware Single Glazed interior, unglazed exterior
Rim and body fragment with
Ceramic: Coarse Hollowware: Body/Rim Lead Glazed:
167 4 65.007 39.007 4.1-4.7 1 Historic Household Redware Brown, Dark: dark brown glaze on interior, 21.60
Earthenware Sherd Single Glazed
unglazed exterior
Unidentified Fragment with no cut marks or
Rusted iron pieces, probably
169 4 66.002 44.002 4.5-4.8 3 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Almost Complete Indeterminate Rusted 96.10
nails
Very think redware body
Ceramic: Coarse
169 4 66.003 44.003 4.5-4.8 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Unglazed Stained fragment, unglazed, faint white 85.20
Earthenware
lines on the interior, burned
Tooled flat base with small
section of the body present,
Ceramic: Coarse Hollowware: Base/Body Lead Glazed:
169 4 66.004 44.004 4.5-4.8 1 Historic Household Redware Brown: Stained glazed interior, unglazed 45.90
exterior, some dark staining
visible
Slip Body fragment with at least
Ceramic: Coarse
169 4 66.005 44.005 4.5-4.8 1 Historic Household Flatware: Body Sherd Redware Decorated: Yellow: Trailed Slip three yellow trailed slip lines, 1870 6.80
Earthenware
Single Glazed unglazed exterior
Ceramic: Coarse
169 4 66.006 44.006 4.5-4.8 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Redware Unglazed Small unglazed body fragment 3.60
Earthenware
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Small body fragment, interior
169 4 66.007 44.007 4.5-4.8 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: Burned 3.00
Earthenware Double Glazed and exterior glazed
Body fragments, interior and
169 4 66.008 44.008 4.5-4.8 2 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: exterior glazed, pieces do not 13.80
mend
Flat base fragments, pieces do
Ceramic: Refined
169 4 66.009 44.009 4.5-4.8 3 Historic Household Indeterminate: Base Sherd Whiteware Indeterminate Stained not mend, no decoration visible, 1815 11.70
Earthenware
black staining
Body fragment with partial
Ceramic: Refined black printed decoration on the
169 4 66.010 44.010 4.5-4.8 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Whiteware Printed Black: Indeterminate 1815-1915 Azizi et al 1996 1.80
Earthenware exterior, possible top of a tree
visible
Very small, thin rim fragment
Ceramic: Refined with blue printed branches and
169 4 66.011 44.011 4.5-4.8 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Rim Sherd Whiteware Printed Blue: Indeterminate 1815-1915 Azizi et al 1996 0.50
Earthenware part of a flower visible on the
interior

D.14

Thin rim fragment with brown
line along the top of the rim,
Indeterminate: Body/Rim Porcelain, Chinese
169 4 66.012 44.012 4.5-4.8 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Painted Blue, Brown: Indeterminate pattern along the interior rim 1.90
Sherd Export
and a painted leaf visible on the
exterior body
Small pedestal base fragment,
169 4 66.013 44.013 4.5-4.8 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Hollowware: Base Sherd White Salt Glazed Indeterminate 1720-1785 www.jefpat.org 2.90
Unidentified Bone with a row of cut marks
178 3 60.001 36.001 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment 40.20
Mammal visible
178 3 60.002 36.002 1 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Complete Indeterminate Rusted Heavily rusted iron nail 19.10
178 3 60.003 36.003 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Shell Coral: Fragment Coral 10.40
Undecorated pipe stem and

Ceramic: Refined Smoking Pipe: Almost
178 3 60.004 36.004 1 Historic Personal White Ball Clay Charred bowl, some charring on the 18.00
Earthenware Complete
exterior (5/64 dia.)
Curved body fragment, cord-
Ceramic: Coarse Iberian Coarse Lead Glazed: made vessels with lines faintly
178 3 60.005 36.005 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Green: X 41.60
Earthenware Earthenware Single Glazed visible, green glazed interior,
exterior is unglazed
Tooled flat base, two incised
Hollowware: Base/Body
178 3 60.006 36.006 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Gray Nottingham Type Incised Other lines around the base of the 1690-1800 www.jefpat.org 18.00
Sherd
body
Thick white tin glazed tile
Ceramic: Coarse
178 3 60.007 36.007 2 Historic Architectural Tile: Fragment Tin Glazed Indeterminate fragments, possible floor or wall 69.50
Earthenware
tiles, pieces do not mend
White tin glazed small bowl,

bulbous body and flared rim, http://www.city-data.com/world-
Ceramic: Refined Bowl, Small: Body/Rim
178 3 60.008 36.008 2 Historic Household Tin Glazed Indeterminate Flare X majority spalled on the exterior, 1682-1800 cities/Philadelphia-History.html, Azizi 41.30
Earthenware Sherd
no other decoration visible, et al 1996
pieces mend
Slip Small curved fragment, brown

178 3 60.009 36.009 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Decorated: Brown: Indeterminate slip decoration visible on 1670-1820 Azizi et al 1996 1.60
Double Glazed exterior
Rib fragment of a small to
189 5 72.002 38.002 2.4-4.2 1 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Hinge: Complete 48.60
Two incised lines on exterior of
handle, each with the same
motif of vertical lines of slip in
Other (see
189 5 72.003 38.003 2.4-4.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Hollowware: Handle Nottingham Type them: 2 dark brown lines on the 1690-1800 www.jefpat.org 1.70
comments)
exterior followed by two light
brown lines with one white line
at the center.
Interior glazed. One line of
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse British Buff-Bodied yellow trailed slip next to one
189 5 72.004 38.004 2.4-4.2 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Decorated: Brown, Yellow: Trailed Slip 1670-1795 Azizi et al 1996 1.20
Earthenware Slipware line of brown trailed slip on
Single Glazed
interior.
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Light brown glaze on exterior,
Earthenware Double Glazed dark brown glaze on interior.
189 5 72.006 38.006 2.4-4.2 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: Interior glazed. 3.30
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse Interior glazed. Small spot of
189 5 72.007 38.007 2.4-4.2 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Rim Sherd Redware Decorated: White: Indeterminate 5.30
Earthenware white slip visible on interior.
Single Glazed
189 5 72.008 38.008 2.4-4.2 2 Historic Household Dish: Body/Rim Sherd Redware Brown: w/ self Coggled Interior glaze. 14.50
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse Yellow & Green: Trailed Slip w/ Dish or pan with a German-style
194 5 73.001 43.001 3.7-4.6 1 Historic Household Dish/Pan: Body/Rim Sherd Redware Decorated: X 1870 15.90
Earthenware Copper Blotches rim.
Single Glazed
Interior glazed; exterior
Ceramic: Coarse British Buff-Bodied Lead Glazed:
194 5 73.002 43.002 3.7-4.6 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Base Sherd Yellow: unglazed. No slip decoration 1670-1795 Azizi et al 1996 6.80
Earthenware Slipware Single Glazed
visible.
Likely a mug or tankard base
but not enough of the vessel
Ceramic: Coarse Hollowware: Base/Body
194 5 73.003 43.003 3.7-4.6 1 Historic Household Manganese Mottled Reeded X remains to identify definitively. 1675-1780 www.jefpat.org 15.00
Earthenware Sherd
Reeded bands visible around
the base.
Unidentified object. Very thick
and coarse, paste is a salmon
color. Resembles a water/sewer
Ceramic: Coarse Unidentified Coarse Reeded: Rust pipe but it has reeding on the
194 5 73.004 43.004 3.7-4.6 1 Historic Indeterminate Hollowware: Body Sherd Brown, Dark: 69.90
Earthenware Earthenware Double Glazed Stained exterior. It is from the same
context as some very early
ceramics so if it is a pipe, it is
likely intrusive.

D.15

Small sherd; not enough of http://www.city-data.com/world-

Ceramic: Coarse
194 5 73.005 43.005 3.7-4.6 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Tin Glazed Painted Blue: Indeterminate decoration remains to identify 1682-1800 cities/Philadelphia-History.html, Azizi 1.00
Earthenware
pattern. et al 1996
Not enough of decoration

Porcelain, Chinese remains to identify pattern.
194 5 73.006 43.006 3.7-4.6 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Hollowware: Body Sherd Painted Blue: Indeterminate 3.30
Export What is visible looks like a floral
pattern.
Ceramic: Refined
194 5 73.007 43.007 3.7-4.6 1 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Stem White Ball Clay Slightly charred. (5/64 dia.) 2.60
Earthenware
Unidentified
194 5 73.008 43.008 3.7-4.6 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Cut marks visible. 25.00
Mammal
Unidentified
194 5 73.009 43.009 3.7-4.6 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Almost Complete No cut or butcher marks visible. 34.00
Mammal
Unidentified Bone fragments with no cut or
195 5 3 75.001 45.001 1.14-1.9 2 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment 39.40
Bent wood fragment, burned,
195 5 3 75.002 45.002 1.14-1.9 1 Historic Indeterminate Flora: Wood Wood Fragment Burned 6.70
probably from a plank
Large oyster shell fragment with
195 5 3 75.003 45.003 1.14-1.9 1 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Hinge: Fragment Oyster 107.50
hinge present
195 5 3 75.004 45.004 1.14-1.9 2 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Hinge: Complete Clam Two small complete clam shells 6.00
195 5 3 75.005 45.005 1.14-1.9 0 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Fragment Oyster n=1 0.30
195 5 3 75.006 45.006 1.14-1.9 1 Historic Indeterminate Metal: Iron Indeterminate: Fragment Indeterminate Rusted Very rusted metal rod or bar 619.60
Small body fragment, no
195 5 3 75.007 45.007 1.14-1.9 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Indeterminate: Body Sherd White Salt Glazed Indeterminate 1720-1785 www.jefpat.org 2.00
decoration visible
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Rim fragment, interior glazed,
195 5 3 75.008 45.008 1.14-1.9 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Rim Sherd Redware Brown: 10.90
Earthenware Single Glazed exterior unglazed
Slip Glazed interior with at least five
195 5 3 75.009 45.009 1.14-1.9 1 Historic Household Flatware: Body Sherd Decorated: Brown, Yellow: Trailed Slip trailed slip lines visible with 1670-1820 Azizi et al 1996 13.00
Single Glazed faint yellow lines next to them
Body fragment with
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: brown/green interior glaze,
195 5 3 75.010 45.010 1.14-1.9 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Brown/Green: Burned 17.10
Earthenware Single Glazed unglazed exterior, burned
section on the exterior
Large hollow long bone.
195 5 74.001 49.001 4.5-5.8 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Burned 78.60
Burned.
195 5 74.002 49.002 4.5-5.8 1 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Indeterminate: Body Sherd Aqua Indeterminate 4.10
195 5 74.003 49.003 4.5-5.8 4 Historic Personal Fauna: Leather Shoe/Boot Parts: Fragment Multiple shoe fragments. 28.70
Not fully fired. Brown glaze on
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: interior is faded. Body is very
Earthenware Single Glazed coarse and quart temper
present.
Ceramic: Coarse Hollowware: Base/Body Lead Glazed: Pedestaled
195 5 74.005 49.005 4.5-5.8 2 Historic Household Redware Black: Sherds mend. 19.10
Earthenware Sherd Double Glazed Foot
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse Slip decoration on interior is
195 5 74.006 49.006 4.5-5.8 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Redware Decorated: Yellow: Trailed Slip 1870 4.00
Earthenware partially spalled.
Single Glazed
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse Decorated: Yellow trailed slip covered by
195 5 74.007 49.007 4.5-5.8 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Redware Yellow: Trailed Slip 1870 12.50
Earthenware Copper green copper highlights.
Highlights
Indeterminate: Body/Rim Porcelain, Chinese Painted blue decoration on
195 5 74.008 49.008 4.5-5.8 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Painted Blue: Indeterminate 0.70
Sherd Export interior.
Ceramic: Refined
195 5 74.009 49.009 4.5-5.8 1 Historic Household Saucer: Body/Rim Sherd White Granite Undecorated 1840-1930 www.jefpat.org, Miller et al 2000 pg. 3 5.80
Earthenware
195 5 74.010 49.010 4.5-5.8 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Indeterminate: Body Sherd White Salt Glazed Indeterminate 1720-1785 www.jefpat.org 1.90
195 5 74.011 49.011 4.5-5.8 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Hollowware: hande White Salt Glazed Indeterminate Round handle fragment. 1720-1785 www.jefpat.org 5.10
Three molded lines below
Ceramic: Refined Hollowware: Body/Rim Molded exterior rim and one olded line
197 4 67.070 40.070 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Creamware Other 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 12.90
Earthenware Sherd Pattern on exterior body that has
partially spalled off.
Ceramic: Refined Hollowware: Body/Rim Molded One line of beading below
197 4 67.071 40.071 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Creamware Beaded 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 3.00
Earthenware Sherd Pattern exterior rim.
Ceramic: Refined Hollowware: Body/Rim No visible decoration. Two
197 4 67.072 40.072 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Household Creamware Indeterminate 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 6.30
Earthenware Sherd vessels represented.
197 4 67.073 40.073 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Creamware Indeterminate No visible decoration. 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 2.60
Earthenware Sherd
197 4 67.074 40.074 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Creamware Ribbed Molded ribs on exterior. 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 4.50
Earthenware Pattern
197 4 67.001 40.001 4.6-5.2 80 Organic Other Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Indeterminate Multiple large bone fragments. 1846.20

D.16

197 4 67.002 40.002 4.6-5.2 15 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Feline (Cat) Fragmented cat skull. 30.20
197 4 67.003 40.003 4.6-5.2 9 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Other Coral: Fragment Coral 117.30
Core that was subsequently

Strike-a-light/Core: Gray- repurposed as a strike-a-light as
197 4 67.004 40.004 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Other Lithic: Flint, Other 24.30
Complete Yellow evidence by heavy batter along
multiple edges.
197 4 67.005 40.005 4.6-5.2 0 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Fragment Clam, Quahog Count = 3 15.20
Large cut nails, too rusted to

197 4 67.006 40.006 4.6-5.2 5 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Complete Cut Rusted identify manufatcuring 76.00
technique any further.
Long flat object that is hooked
at the top and has another hook
197 4 67.007 40.007 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Indeterminate Metal: Iron Indeterminate: Fragment Rusted 52.90
protruding from the body
slightly above the center.
197 4 67.008 40.008 4.6-5.2 9 Historic Indeterminate Metal: Iron Indeterminate: Fragment Rusted Flat rectangular iron fragment. 856.90
197 4 67.009 40.009 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Architectural Other: Composite Mortar: Fragment Tan 4.40
Complete pipe bowl with a

Ceramic: Refined
197 4 67.010 40.010 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Bowl White Ball Clay small portion of stem still 12.20
Earthenware
attached. (5/64 dia.)
Broken pipe bowl with a small
Ceramic: Refined
197 4 67.011 40.011 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Bowl White Ball Clay fragment of pipe stem still 5.90
Earthenware
attached. (6/64 dia.)
Small fragment of lower portion
197 4 67.012 40.012 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Bowl White Ball Clay Ribbed of pipe bowl with molded ribs 1.40
Earthenware Pattern
on exterior.
Ceramic: Refined Pipe stem broken on both ends.
197 4 67.013 40.013 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Stem White Ball Clay w/ self 7.40
Earthenware Organically stained. (5/64 dia.)
Pipe stems broken on both
Ceramic: Refined
197 4 67.014 40.014 4.6-5.2 5 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Stem White Ball Clay ends. Multiple pipes may be 14.00
Earthenware
represented. (5/64 dia.)
Container Glass: Body Mouth Blown, Curved body sherds. Heavily
197 4 67.015 40.015 4.6-5.2 6 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Olive w/ self Patinated 22.10
Sherd General patinated.
Curved body sherds. Multiple
197 4 67.016 40.016 4.6-5.2 7 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Green Patinated vessels may be represented. 28.40
Sherd General
Heavily patinated.
Mouth Blown, Cylindrical body sherd. Heavily
197 4 67.017 40.017 4.6-5.2 4 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Container Glass: Base Sherd Green Patinated 77.70
General patinated.
Container Glass: Body Mouth Blown, Curved body sherds. Sherds do
197 4 67.018 40.018 4.6-5.2 5 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Aqua, Light 8.70
Sherd General not mend.
Mouth Blown,
197 4 67.019 40.019 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Indeterminate: Body Sherd Amethyst Slightly curved body sherd. 1.20
General
Large cylindrical bottle, possibly
197 4 67.020 40.020 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Bottle: Base Sherd Olive Free Blown Pontil, Sand Patinated 1870 200.70
for liquor. Large kick-up in base.
Pontil, Glass Large cylindrical bottle, possibly
197 4 67.021 40.021 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Glass: Common Glass Bottle: Base/Body Sherd Olive Free Blown Patinated 1865 419.40
tipped for liquor. Large kick-up in base.
Rim neck and shoulders of a
bottle. Looks possibly
197 4 67.022 40.022 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Glass: Lead Bottle: Body/Rim Sherd Colorless Free Blown Flare 13.20
rectangular from shape of
shoulders.
Pontil, Glass
197 4 67.023 40.023 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Glass: Non-Lead Glass Tumbler: Base/Body Sherd Colorless Free Blown Cylindrical tumbler base. 61.50
tipped
Pontil, Glass
tipped
Etched motif on exterior: wavy
line right below rim with a
197 4 67.026 40.026 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Glass: Non-Lead Glass Tumbler: Body/Rim Sherd Colorless Free Blown Etched Other straight ring below it; Large X 2.40
and dot motif on body below
ring.
Container Glass: Body Mouth Blown, Curved body sherds. Sherds do
197 4 67.027 40.027 4.6-5.2 3 Historic Household Glass: Non-Lead Glass Colorless 11.30
Sherd General not mend.
197 4 67.028 40.028 4.6-5.2 12 Historic Architectural Glass: Common Glass Window Glass: Body Sherd Aqua 45.80

D.17

Overglaze painted on both
exterior and interior. Interior
motif: circulular design that
appears to be a bowl with blue
on the outside and light green
Footring, at the center with "foxy" red
Ceramic: Refined Hollowware: Base/Body Fazackerly Free- leaf-like objectes protuding
197 4 67.029 40.029 4.6-5.2 5 Historic Household Tin Glazed Polychrome: Indeterminate X 1750-1770 Miller et al 2000 pg. 11 99.80
Earthenware Sherd Palette Standing from either side. Exterior motif:
Round Purple circular flower with
three green leaves attached to
it and two separate red leaves
next to it. Only two sherds
mend but all from the same
vessel.
Ceramic: Refined Blue painted floral motif on
197 4 67.030 40.030 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Base Sherd Tin Glazed Painted Blue: Floral 1682-1800 cities/Philadelphia-History.html, Azizi 5.10
Earthenware interior.
et al 1996
Hollowware: Body/Rim No visible decoration. Multiple

197 4 67.031 40.031 4.6-5.2 3 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware White Salt Glazed Indeterminate 1720-1785 www.jefpat.org 18.90
Sherd vessels represented.
No visible decoration. Sherds do
not mend.
No visible decoration. Multiple
197 4 67.033 40.033 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Hollowware: Base Sherd White Salt Glazed Indeterminate 1720-1785 www.jefpat.org 23.70
vessels represented.
Two horinzontal lines of scratch
Noel Hume 2001 pg. 206,
197 4 67.034 40.034 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Indeterminate: Rim Sherd White Salt Glazed Scratch Blue Blue: Indeterminate blue on interior body right 1735-1778 1.10
www.jefpat.org
below rim.
Painted motif on interior. One
ring around interior rim and a
landscape motif on interior
base: one person holding a bird
Tooled Foot,
Saucer: Base/Body/Rim next to a tree in the foreground
197 4 67.035 40.035 4.6-5.2 4 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Porcelain, Hard Paste Painted Blue: Indeterminate w/ self Rounded 1760 43.10
Sherd and a person working in a field
Foot Ring
with a house in the background.
Geometric motif around the
landscape motif. One sherd
does not mend.
Red overlgaze painted flowers
on exterior and exterior body
Painted:
Hollowware: Footring, with blue leaves (underglaze).
197 4 67.036 40.036 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Porcelain, Hard Paste Painted, Blue, Red: Other Flare 14.30
Base/Body/Rim Sherd None Blue (underglaze) and red
Overglaze
(overglaze) criss-crossing
straight lines on base.
Painted on interior: Two gold
Tooled Foot, lines that loop toghether with a
Painted, Wedge- ring around them where they
197 4 67.037 40.037 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Plate: Base/Body Sherd Porcelain, Hard Paste Red, Gold: Indeterminate 31.80
Overglaze Shaped Foot loop. Lines and loop are
Ring outlines in red. Red flower on
interior base.
One painted straight blue line
Painted:
visible and one red overglaze
197 4 67.038 40.038 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Flatware: Base Sherd Porcelain, Hard Paste Painted, Blue, Red: Indeterminate 11.70
painted curved ribbon-like line
Overglaze
on interior base.
Printed motif on interior and
Hollowware: Body/Rim interior: Roof of a building and
197 4 67.039 40.039 4.6-5.2 3 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Porcelain, Hard Paste Printed Blue: Indeterminate w/ self 4.20
Sherd trees visible on exerior body
and ring around interior rim.
Footring,
Indeterminate: Base/Body Free- Painted tree visible on interior
197 4 67.040 40.040 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Porcelain, Hard Paste Painted Blue: Indeterminate 5.60
Sherd Standing base.
Round
Footring,
Printed landscape decoration
Free-
197 4 67.041 40.041 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Indeterminate: Base Sherd Porcelain, Hard Paste Printed Blue: Indeterminate on interior. Two vessels 9.50
Standing
represented.
Wedge
Multiple vessels represented.
197 4 67.042 40.042 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Hollowware: Body Sherd Porcelain, Hard Paste Painted Blue: Indeterminate 3.40
Decoration present on exterior.
One painted flower visible on
197 4 67.043 40.043 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Indeterminate: Body Sherd Porcelain, Hard Paste Painted Blue: Floral 2.40
interior body.
Four lines on exterior below
197 4 67.044 40.044 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Hollowware: Rim Sherd Porcelain, Hard Paste Printed Blue: Indeterminate 0.50
rim. Two lines on interior rim.
One line on interior rim and one
197 4 67.045 40.045 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Flatware: Rim Sherd Porcelain, Hard Paste Painted Blue: Indeterminate partially visible shape that 0.90
resembles a leaf.
One brown painted line on top
of rim. Overglaze paianted
Printed:
Indeterminate: Body/Rim motif on interior body. Paint
197 4 67.046 40.046 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Porcelain, Hard Paste Painted, Indeterminate: Indeterminate w/ self 2.60
Sherd has chipped off and only a
Overglaze
vague stained outline of motif
remains.

D.18

197 4 67.047 40.047 4.6-5.2 3 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Hollowware: Body Sherd Porcelain, Hard Paste Indeterminate 9.10
not mend.
Vertical molded wide ribs on
exterior body. Molded flower at
Molded end of attached handle. Flower
Ceramic: Refined
197 4 67.048 40.048 4.6-5.2 4 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Prattware Pattern: Green: Other painted yellow. Green painted 1780-1840 Lewis & Lewis 1993 18.10
Earthenware
Painted spots on exertior. Sherds do not
mend but belong to the same
vessel.
Molded
Ceramic: Refined Green: Shell Edge, Even Scalloped, Sherds do not mend but likely
197 4 67.049 40.049 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Household Plate, 7": Rim Sherd Pearlware Pattern: Scalloped 1800-1840 www.jefpat.org 11.10
Earthenware Curved Lines belong to the same vessel.
Painted
Dipt mocha pattern with a
Ceramic: Refined
197 4 67.050 40.050 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Pearlware Dipt Brown, Black: Mocha brown background and black 1790-1860 www.jefpat.org 7.70
Earthenware
patches in it on exterior/
Banded motif on exterior.
Alternating blue and orange
bands, starting with blue below
Ceramic: Refined Hollowware: Body/Rim the rim and ending with orange
197 4 67.051 40.051 4.6-5.2 5 Historic Household Pearlware Dipt Polychrome: Banded w/ self Flare X 1775-1860 Azizi et al 1996, www.jefpat.org 12.30
Earthenware Sherd near the base (both have 3).
Second orange band has a band
of repeating bornw circles
within it. Slightly flared rim.
Footring,
Ceramic: Refined Hollowware: Base/Body Free- Possibly floral motif on exterior: www.jefpat.org, Miller et al 2000 pg.
197 4 67.052 40.052 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Pearlware Printed Blue: Indeterminate 1803-1830 11.00
Earthenware Sherd Standing not enough to determine. 13
Round
Footring, Ray-like lines on interior base
Ceramic: Refined Free- with possibly a star at the
197 4 67.053 40.053 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Base Sherd Pearlware Painted Blue: Indeterminate 1775-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 5.80
Earthenware Standing center (only top three rays of
Round star visible).
Ceramic: Refined One painted blue line visible on
197 4 67.054 40.054 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Pearlware Painted Blue: Indeterminate 1775-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 1.40
Criss-crossing and curving lines
on exterior body, likely a
Ceramic: Refined Hollowware: Body/Rim landscape motif but not enough
197 4 67.055 40.055 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Pearlware Painted Blue: Indeterminate 1775-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 1.90
Earthenware Sherd to discern; two lines on interior
rim (one straight line over one
wavy line).
Two lines on interior rim: one
Ceramic: Refined
197 4 67.056 40.056 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Rim Sherd Pearlware Painted Blue: Indeterminate straight line above one wavy 1775-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 0.70
Earthenware
line.
Ceramic: Refined Indeterminate painted motif on
197 4 67.057 40.057 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Rim Sherd Pearlware Painted Blue: Indeterminate 1775-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 0.60
Earthenware interior rim, criss-crossing lines.
Painted motif on interior: not
enough to determine motif.
Ceramic: Refined One brown horizontal line on
197 4 67.058 40.058 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Flatware: Rim Sherd Pearlware Painted Earth Tone Colors: Indeterminate 1795-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 0.50
Earthenware interior rim and one small
portion of green shape below
the brown line.
Ceramic: Refined Stem with four leaves visible on www.jefpat.org, Miller et al 2000 pg.
197 4 67.059 40.059 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Pearlware Printed Black: Floral 1803-1830 0.70
Earthenware interior. 13
Ceramic: Refined No visible decoration. Sherds

197 4 67.060 40.060 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Household Plate, 7": Rim Sherd Pearlware Indeterminate 1775-1840 Azizi et al 1996 6.70
Earthenware probably from the same vessel.
No visible decoration. All from
Ceramic: Refined Molded the same plate. Bath style rim.
197 4 67.061 40.061 4.6-5.2 5 Historic Household Plate, 8": Rim Sherd Pearlware Bath Rim 1775-1840 Azizi et al 1996 31.80
Earthenware Pattern Kiln pad mark on rim. One
sherd does not mend.
Ceramic: Refined
197 4 67.062 40.062 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Plate: Rim Sherd Pearlware Indeterminate No visible decoration. 1775-1840 Azizi et al 1996 2.30
Earthenware
Footring,
Ceramic: Refined Free-
197 4 67.063 40.063 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Base Sherd Pearlware Indeterminate No visible decoration. 1775-1840 Azizi et al 1996 4.00
Earthenware Standing
Wedge
Ceramic: Refined Curved body sherds. Sherds do
197 4 67.064 40.064 4.6-5.2 7 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Pearlware Indeterminate 1775-1840 Azizi et al 1996 12.40
Earthenware not mend.
Overglaze painting on interior
and exterior. One painted line
below interior rim. Repeating
Ceramic: Refined Hollowware: Body/Rim Painted,
197 4 67.065 40.065 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Household Creamware Red: Indeterminate motif on exterior: trianlge of 1765-1815 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 10.00
Earthenware Sherd Overglaze
three dots with three petal-like
shapes hanging down from the
dots.
Horizontal red line on both
Ceramic: Refined Painted, interior and interior rim.
197 4 67.066 40.066 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Rim Sherd Creamware Red: Indeterminate 1765-1815 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 1.60
Earthenware Overglaze Indeterminate motif on exterior
body. Red lines and dots visible.
Ceramic: Refined Painted, One horizontal line visible on
197 4 67.067 40.067 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Rim Sherd Creamware Red: Indeterminate 1765-1815 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 0.40
Earthenware Overglaze interior rim.
Ceramic: Refined Painted, One short, wide line of painted
197 4 67.068 40.068 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Creamware Red: Indeterminate 1765-1815 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 2.80
Earthenware Overglaze red motif visible on exterior.

D.19

Plate, Soup: Body/Rim Molded
197 4 67.069 40.069 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware White Salt Glazed Barley Scalloped X Barley pattern on interior rim. 1740-1770 www.jefpat.org 20.10
Sherd Pattern
Ceramic: Refined Hollowware: Base/Body Tooled Foot, No visible decoration. Bulbous
197 4 67.075 40.075 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Creamware Indeterminate 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 4.50
Earthenware Sherd Flat Base round body.
Tooled Foot, Use wear present on interior &
197 4 67.076 40.076 4.6-5.2 4 Historic Household Flatware: Base Sherd Creamware Indeterminate Rounded exterior. Organically stained. 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 23.50
Foot Ring Multiple vessels represented.
Flat base sherd. Heavy usewear
197 4 67.077 40.077 4.6-5.2 3 Historic Household Flatware: Base Sherd Creamware Indeterminate on interior. Organically stained. 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 20.50
Multiple vessels represented.
Ceramic: Refined
197 4 67.078 40.078 4.6-5.2 17 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Creamware Indeterminate not mend. Multiple vessels 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 45.90
Earthenware
represented.
Ceramic: Refined Unidentified Refined Too stained to determine ware

197 4 67.079 40.079 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Indeterminate 1.30
Earthenware Earthenware type. No visible decoration.
Slip decorated on exterior.

Mottled brown slip on 2/3 of
salt Glazed,
197 4 67.080 40.080 4.6-5.2 3 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Jar: Base/Body/Rim Sherd Gray Slip Decorated Mottled: w/ self Rolled X vessel with white slip with a 268.00
Brown/Gray Bodied
faint hint of cobalt on heel on
extrerior.
Mottled brown slip on 2/3 of
salt Glazed,
197 4 67.081 40.081 4.6-5.2 3 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Hollowware: Body Sherd Slip Decorated Mottled: w/ self X vessel with white slip with a 77.60
Brown/Gray Bodied
faint hint of cobalt on heel on
extrerior.
salt Glazed, Collared Mottled brown slip on exterior.
197 4 67.082 40.082 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Bottle: Body/Rim Sherd Gray Slip Decorated Mottled: X 19.40
Brown/Gray Bodied Ring Slip present on cross-section
break, likely made locally.
One large cobalt blue brush
Salt Glazed, Gray/Buff stroke on exterior below rim.
197 4 67.083 40.083 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Jar: Body/Rim Sherd Gray Painted Blue: Indeterminate 52.30
Bodied Flat ledge-type rim for a lid to
sit on.
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse Wavy trailed slip on interior.
197 4 67.084 40.084 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Household Pan: Body/Rim Sherd Redware Decorated: Yellow: Trailed Slip w/ self Guttered Charred 1870 82.40
Earthenware Sherds mend.
Single Glazed
Slip Wavy trailed slip on interior.
Ceramic: Coarse
197 4 67.085 40.085 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Household Pan: Body/Rim Sherd Redware Decorated: Yellow: Trailed Slip w/ self Guttered Multiple vessels represented. 1870 56.60
Earthenware
Single Glazed Slightly everted rims.
Diamond-like shapes and
straight lines of trailed slip.
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse Sherds mend into 3 separate
197 4 67.086 40.086 4.6-5.2 8 Historic Household Dish: Body/Rim Sherd Redware Decorated: Yellow: Trailed Slip w/ self Coggled Charred 1870 866.00
Earthenware sections but all from the same
Single Glazed
dish. Heavy use wear on
interior.
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse Diagonal lines of yellow trailed
Earthenware slip on interior.
Single Glazed
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse Three dots of trailed slip visible
Earthenware on interior.
Single Glazed
Slip Multiple vessels represented.
Ceramic: Coarse
197 4 67.089 40.089 4.6-5.2 6 Historic Household Dish/Pan: Body Sherd Redware Decorated: Yellow: Trailed Slip Trailed slip on interior. Exterior 1870 24.30
Earthenware
Single Glazed unglazed.
Ceramic: Coarse Hollowware: Body/Rim Lead Glazed: Curved rim sherds. Sherds do
197 4 67.090 40.090 4.6-5.2 4 Historic Household Redware Brown, Dark: 19.10
Earthenware Sherd Double Glazed not mend.
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Curved body sherds. Sherds do
197 4 67.091 40.091 4.6-5.2 14 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: 49.30
Earthenware Double Glazed not mend.
Ceramic: Coarse Hollowware: Body/Rim Lead Glazed: Double glazed. Multiple vessels
197 4 67.092 40.092 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Household Redware Brown, Dark: Flare 20.80
Earthenware Sherd Double Glazed represented.
197 4 67.093 40.093 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Bottle: Body/Rim Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: Collar finish of a bottle. 13.70
Cylindrical hollowware. Possibly
Ceramic: Coarse Hollowware: Base/Body Lead Glazed: the lower half of the same
197 4 67.094 40.094 4.6-5.2 3 Historic Household Redware Brown, Dark: w/ self 322.00
Earthenware Sherd Double Glazed bottle as entry 40.93; missing
handle.
Interior glazed. Not all sherds
Ceramic: Coarse Milk Pan: Base/Body/Rim Lead Glazed:
197 4 67.095 40.095 4.6-5.2 12 Historic Household Redware Brown: w/ self Pouring X mend. Two tie down lines on 1148.80
exterior
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Multiple vessels represented. 6
197 4 67.096 40.096 4.6-5.2 32 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: 667.50
Earthenware Single Glazed sherds mend.
Two sherds mend but all from
197 4 67.097 40.097 4.6-5.2 3 Historic Household Redware Brown, Dark: Flare the same vessel. Curved body 17.60
Earthenware Sherd Double Glazed
sherds w/ flared rim.
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Obvious All sherds mend. Incised line on
197 4 67.098 40.098 4.6-5.2 5 Historic Household Jar: Body/Rim Sherd Redware Brown: 122.70
Earthenware Single Glazed Use Wear ext. Use wear on rim.
All sherds mend. Incised/tie-
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: down line on exterior. Smear of
197 4 67.099 40.099 4.6-5.2 3 Historic Household Jar: Body/Rim Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: 125.60
Earthenware Single Glazed glaze on exterior irm. Rounded
outward rim.

D.20

Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Obvious Incised/tie-down line on
197 4 67.100 40.100 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Jar: Body/Rim Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: 28.40
Earthenware Single Glazed Use Wear exterior. Use wear on rim.
Exterior is weathered.
197 4 67.101 40.101 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Jar: Body/Rim Sherd Redware Black: Incised/tie-down lines on 33.70
exterior. Rim has a slight flare.
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Folded/rolled outward rim.
197 4 67.102 40.102 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Jar: Body/Rim Sherd Redware Black: 80.50
Earthenware Single Glazed Black glaze on interior.
Very thick rim sherd. Black glaze
197 4 67.103 40.103 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Jar: Body/Rim Sherd Redware Black: on interior. Exterior has use 62.50
wear.
197 4 67.104 40.104 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Pan: Rim Sherd Redware Brown: 61.20
Ceramic: Coarse Hollowware: Base/Body Lead Glazed: Sherds mend. Spot of glaze on
197 4 67.105 40.105 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Household Redware Brown, Dark: 81.40
Earthenware Sherd Single Glazed exterior.
Sherds mend. Phildelphia style
Ceramic: Coarse Hollowware: Base/Body Lead Glazed: Philadelphia-
197 4 67.106 40.106 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Household Redware Brown, Dark: Charred foot on interior w/ a pedestaled 158.70
Earthenware Sherd Double Glazed Style Foot
base. Base has some charring.
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Body sherd w. a base of a strap
197 4 67.107 40.107 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: 6.50
Earthenware Single Glazed style hand present.
Ceramic: Coarse Hollowware: Body/Rim Lead Glazed: Thin bodied hollwware. Curved
197 4 67.108 40.108 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Redware Brown, Dark: Flare 5.80
Earthenware Sherd Double Glazed sherd w/ a flared rim.
Indeterminate: Interior spalled. Sherds mend.
Ceramic: Coarse
197 4 67.109 40.109 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Household Hollowware: Rim Sherd Redware Interior Smear of glaze on exterior 8.40
Earthenware
Spalled under rim. Probaly a jar.
Lead Glazed: Multiple vessels represented.
Ceramic: Coarse
197 4 67.110 40.110 4.6-5.2 6 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Redware Exterior Brown: Exterior is spalled. Interiors are 84.40
Earthenware
Spalled mostly spalled.
Interior
Ceramic: Coarse Spalled: Multiple vessels represented.
197 4 67.111 40.111 4.6-5.2 4 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Redware 40.10
Earthenware Exterior Both surfaces spalled.
Spalled
Multiple saggars represented.
Ceramic: Coarse
197 4 67.112 40.112 4.6-5.2 10 Historic Manufacturing Saggar: Fragment Redware Short & stout Body, base & rim 976.70
Earthenware
fragments.
Shrerds do not mend but are
Slip from the same vessel. Trailed
Ceramic: Coarse
197 4 67.113 40.113 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Manufacturing Pan: Body/Rim Sherd Redware Decorated: Yellow & Brown: Trailed Slip slip on interior has yellow & 1870 67.90
Earthenware
Single Glazed brown decoration on interior.
Charred on exterior.
Very tiny pan. Sherds mend.
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Obvious
197 4 67.114 40.114 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Household Pan: Body/Rim Sherd Redware Brown, Light: Light use wear on rim. Lightly 13.60
Earthenware Single Glazed Use Wear
charred.
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse
197 4 67.115 40.115 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Pan/Dish: Rim Sherd Redware Decorated: Indeterminate: Trailed Slip Brown. Trailed slip is spalled. 1870 9.30
Earthenware
Single Glazed
Slip
Mutliple vessels represented.
Ceramic: Coarse Decorated:
197 4 67.116 40.116 4.6-5.2 4 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Redware Yellow & Green: Trailed Slip Trailed slip on interior w/ 1870 42.00
Earthenware Copper
copper highlights.
Highlights
Mulitple vessels represented.
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse Yellow slip decoration on
197 4 67.117 40.117 4.6-5.2 12 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Decorated: Yellow: Lower Delaware Valley Style 1740-1820 Azizi et al 1996 49.50
Earthenware interior. Exterior has brown
Double Glazed
glaze.
Ceramic: Coarse Decorated: Yellow trailed slip on interior w/
197 4 67.118 40.118 4.6-5.2 6 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Yellow: Lower Delaware Valley Style 1740-1820 Azizi et al 1996 44.00
Earthenware Copper copper highlights. Brown glaze
Highlights on interior. Two sherds mend.
Ceramic: Coarse
197 4 67.119 40.119 4.6-5.2 7 Historic Household Bowl: Rim Sherd Redware Decorated: Yellow: Lower Delaware Valley Style Yellow slip on interior. Brown 1740-1820 Azizi et al 1996 33.40
Earthenware
Double Glazed glaze on exterior.
Slip Bowl w/ Large yellow overall
Ceramic: Coarse Decorated: slip on interior w/ copper
197 4 67.120 40.120 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Bowl: Body/Rim Sherd Redware Yellow: Lower Delaware Valley Style 1740-1820 Azizi et al 1996 51.30
Earthenware Copper highlights. Brown glaze on
Highlights interior.
Slip Sherds mend. Yellow mottled
Ceramic: Coarse Decorated: overall slip on interior w/
197 4 67.121 40.121 4.6-5.2 3 Historic Household Bowl: Body/Rim Sherd Redware Yellow: Lower Delaware Valley Style 1740-1820 Azizi et al 1996 38.30
Earthenware Copper copper highlights. Exterior has
Highlights brown glaze.
Sherds mend. Yellow overall slip
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse Bowl: Base/Body/Rim Pedestaled on interior. Charred & use wear
197 4 67.122 40.122 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Household Redware Decorated: Yellow: Lower Delaware Valley Style Charred 1740-1820 Azizi et al 1996 22.20
Earthenware Sherd Foot on interior. Exterior has brown
Double Glazed
glaze. Small bowl.
Bowl base. Philadelphia style
foot. Pedestaled base. Kiln pad
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse Philadelphia- mark on exterior. Partial glaze
197 4 67.123 40.123 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Bowl: Base Sherd Redware Decorated: Yellow: Lower Delaware Valley Style 1740-1820 Azizi et al 1996 90.90
Earthenware Style Foot on ext. base. Yellow/brown
Double Glazed
mottled slip on interior. Exterior
brown glaze.
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse Philadelphia- Yellow slip on interior. Exterior
197 4 67.124 40.124 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Bowl: Base Sherd Redware Decorated: Yellow: Lower Delaware Valley Style 1740-1820 Azizi et al 1996 24.20
Earthenware Style Foot has brown glaze.
Double Glazed

D.21

Ceramic: Refined Lead Glazed:
197 4 67.125 40.125 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Red Bodied Brown: Two vessels represented. 2.70
Molded
Ceramic: Refined
197 4 67.126 40.126 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Red Bodied Pattern: Brown: Indeterminate Molded decoration on exterior. 4.10
Earthenware
Double Glazed
Decoration on exterior has rows
Ceramic: Refined Hollowware: Body/Rim Reeded: of rouleted beads followed by
197 4 67.127 40.127 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Red Bodied Brown: Indeterminate 13.80
Earthenware Sherd Rouletted reeded lines. Has a lid ledge.
Could be a teapot.
Sherds mend into two halves of
Ceramic: Refined Plate: Base/Body/Rim Obvious a plate. Heavy use wear on
197 4 67.128 40.128 4.6-5.2 15 Historic Household Creamware 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 232.90
Earthenware Sherd Use Wear interior and exterio. Charring
present.
Ceramic: Refined
197 4 67.129 40.129 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Handle Creamware Undecorated Creamware handle fragment. 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 12.60
Earthenware
Ceramic: Refined
197 4 67.130 40.130 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Base Sherd Creamware Indeterminate 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 2.20
Earthenware
Ceramic: Refined Pedestaled
197 4 67.131 40.131 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Base Sherd Creamware Indeterminate 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 18.50
Earthenware Foot
Sherds mend. Lightly burned.
Ceramic: Refined
197 4 67.132 40.132 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Household Indeterminate: Base Sherd Creamware Rouletted Beaded Rouleted ring of bead around 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 30.10
Earthenware
footring.
Ceramic: Refined
197 4 67.133 40.133 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Lid: Fragment Creamware Undecorated Undecorated lid fragment. 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 22.00
Earthenware
Ceramic: Refined Hollowware: Body/Rim Rolled outward rim. Sherds
197 4 67.134 40.134 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Household Creamware Undecorated Charred 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 4.70
Earthenware Sherd mend. Light charring present.
Sherds do not mend. Could be
Ceramic: Refined Molded Obvious from the same plate. Bath style
197 4 67.135 40.135 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Household Plate: Body/Rim Sherd Creamware Bath Rim Scalloped 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 19.30
Earthenware Pattern Use Wear scalloped rim. Light use wear
present.
Two sherds mend all from the
same vessel. Feather edged
Ceramic: Refined Tableware, General: Molded Miller et al 2000 pg. 12,
197 4 67.136 40.136 4.6-5.2 3 Historic Household Creamware Feather Edge Scalloped molded pattern on interior rim. 1762-1800 25.00
Earthenware Body/Rim Sherd Pattern www.jefpat.org
Either a large plate or platter.
Lightly scalloped rim.
Use wear on interior & exterior.
Ceramic: Refined Molded Obvious Molded decoration on interior
197 4 67.137 40.137 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Plate: Body/Rim Sherd Creamware Geometric Pattern 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 10.10
Earthenware Pattern Use Wear has a band of repeating
diamond shapes.
Tiny/thin rim. Band of rouletted
Rouletted:
Ceramic: Refined Hollowware: Body/Rim beads on ext. of rim. Followed
197 4 67.138 40.138 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Creamware Painted, Green: Indeterminate 1765-1815 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 0.40
Earthenware Sherd by a green overglazed painted
Overglaze
decoration.
Ceramic: Refined Painted earthtone on interior.
197 4 67.139 40.139 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Pearlware Painted Earth Tone Colors: Floral 1795-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 1.30
Earthenware Brown stem w/ green leaf.
Two sherds mend all are from
the same saucer. Painted
Ceramic: Refined
197 4 67.140 40.140 4.6-5.2 3 Historic Household Saucer: Body/Rim Sherd Pearlware Painted Earth Tone Colors: Lined decoration on interior has a two 1795-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 1.90
Earthenware
thin brown lines w/ a thick
yellow line in between.
Ceramic: Refined Brown line painted on interior &
197 4 67.141 40.141 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Rim Sherd Pearlware Painted Brown: Lined 1795-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 0.10
Earthenware exterior rim.
Blue painted decoration on
197 4 67.142 40.142 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Pearlware Painted Blue: Indeterminate exterior. Exterior mostly 1775-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 0.90
Earthenware Sherd
spalled.
Ceramic: Refined Painted blue decoration on
197 4 67.143 40.143 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Rim Sherd Pearlware Painted Blue: Indeterminate 1775-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 0.10
Ceramic: Refined Dipt mocha decoration on
197 4 67.144 40.144 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Pearlware Dipt Brown: Mocha 1790-1860 www.jefpat.org 2.00
Earthenware exterior.
Molded
Ceramic: Refined Scalloping and lines are about a
197 4 67.145 40.145 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Plate: Body/Rim Sherd Pearlware Pattern: Green: Shell Edge, Indeterminate 1775-1840 Azizi et al 1996 6.00
Earthenware quarter inch in from rim.
Painted
Ceramic: Refined Painted,
197 4 67.146 40.146 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Saucer: Body/Rim Sherd Creamware Red & Brown: Floral Floral decoration on interior. 1765-1815 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 1.30
Earthenware Overglaze
Ceramic: Refined Painted,
197 4 67.147 40.147 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Creamware Red & Brown: Floral Decoration on exterior. 1765-1815 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 1.30
Earthenware Overglaze
Ceramic: Refined Small scratch blue rim sherd. Noel Hume 2001 pg. 206,
197 4 67.148 40.148 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Rim Sherd White Salt Glazed Scratch Blue Blue: Indeterminate 1735-1778 0.20
Earthenware Decoration on exterior. www.jefpat.org
Ceramic: Refined Tableware, General: Rim Molded

197 4 67.149 40.149 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household White Salt Glazed Indeterminate Molded decoration on interior. 1720-1785 www.jefpat.org 1.60
Earthenware Sherd Pattern
Ceramic: Refined Blue painted decoration on
197 4 67.150 40.150 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Tin Glazed Painted Blue: Indeterminate 1682-1800 cities/Philadelphia-History.html, Azizi 1.00
et al 1996
197 4 67.151 40.151 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Indeterminate: Base Sherd Porcelain, Hard Paste Two vessels represented. 1.80

D.22

Molded
Hollowware: Body/Rim Porcelain, Chinese Pattern: Painted overglaze decoration on
197 4 67.152 40.152 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Red: European Neo-Classical Style 1765-1810 Madsen & White 2011 pg. 116 0.60
Sherd Export Painted, exterior. Molded paneled side.
Overglaze
Painted,
Indeterminate: Body/Rim Porcelain, Chinese Red & Gold: European Neo-Classical Decoration on interior has red
197 4 67.153 40.153 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Overglaze: 1765-1810 Madsen & White 2011 pg. 116 1.10
Sherd Export Style paint w/ gold gilding.
Gilding
Brown line a top rim followed
Molded
Hollowware: Body/Rim Porcelain, Chinese Blue & Red: European Neo-Classical by blue & red painted
197 4 67.154 40.154 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Pattern: 1765-1810 Madsen & White 2011 pg. 116 0.90
Sherd Export Style decoration on exterior.
Painted
Hollowware is molded/paneled.
Blue painted decoration on
Hollowware: Body/Rim Porcelain, Chinese Blue & Brown: European Neo-
197 4 67.155 40.155 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Painted exterior w/ brown atop rim. 1765-1810 Madsen & White 2011 pg. 116 1.80
Sherd Export Classical Style
Blue boarder on interior rim.
Blue boarder on interior
Porcelain, Chinese
197 4 67.156 40.156 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Saucer: Body/Rim Sherd Painted Blue: European Neo-Classical Style followed by another blue 1765-1810 Madsen & White 2011 pg. 116 1.00
Export
decoration.
Brown line atop rim. Blue
Hollowware: Body/Rim Porcelain, Chinese Blue & Brown: European Neo-
197 4 67.159 40.159 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Painted painted decoration on interior 1765-1810 Madsen & White 2011 pg. 116 0.30
Sherd Export Classical Style
& exterior.
Blue boarder on interior near
rim. Gold gilding atop rim.
Hollowware: Body/Rim Porcelain, Chinese Painted: Blue & Gold: European Neo-Classical
197 4 67.160 40.160 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Exterior has wavy gilded 1765-1810 Madsen & White 2011 pg. 116 1.70
Sherd Export Gilding Style
decoration followed by a blue
flower.
Salt Glazed, Gray/Buff Miscellaneous

197 4 67.161 40.161 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Hollowware: Body Sherd Gray Tan: Tan slip on interior. 13.10
Bodied Brown Slip
Salt Glazed, Gray/Buff No slip present. A gray bodied

197 4 67.162 40.162 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Indeterminate: Body Sherd Gray Undecorated 4.30
Bodied stoneware body sherd.
Salt Glazed, Gray/Buff Miscellaneous Brown slip on interior &

197 4 67.163 40.163 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Indeterminate: Body Sherd Gray Brown: 1.30
Bodied Brown Slip exterior.
Salt Glazed, Gray/Buff Miscellaneous Light brown slip on exterior. Tan

197 4 67.164 40.164 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Hollowware: Body Sherd Gray Brown, Light: 16.10
Bodied Brown Slip slip on interior.
Salt Glazed, Gray/Buff Miscellaneous Light brown slip on interior &

197 4 67.165 40.165 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Hollowware: Body Sherd Buff Brown, Light: 6.20
Bodied Brown Slip exterior.
Pipe bowl and stem fragments.

Mend. Molded decoration has
fish scale type pattern on stem
197 4 67.166 40.166 4.6-5.2 2 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Bowl White Ball Clay Indeterminate Burned w/ repeating lobes/rib running 12.40
Earthenware Pattern
vertically up bowl. Impressed
berry on bowl. Which could be a
makers mark. (5/64 dia.)
197 4 67.168 40.168 4.6-5.2 5 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Spike: Fragment Indeterminate Rusted 653.50
Rusted iron rod fragment. One
197 4 67.169 40.169 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Indeterminate Metal: Iron Indeterminate: Fragment Indeterminate Rusted 96.30
end is threaded for about 4"
197 4 67.170 40.170 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Indeterminate Metal: Iron Indeterminate: Fragment Indeterminate Rusted Rusted rod w/ one flat end. 31.50
Could be a tool. Rusted object

197 4 67.171 40.171 4.6-5.2 1 Historic Indeterminate Metal: Iron Indeterminate: Fragment Indeterminate Rusted one end is rod shaped that go 107.80
to a flat end.
197 4 67.172 40.172 4.6-5.2 3 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Hinge: Complete Clam 233.38
197 4 67.173 40.173 4.6-5.2 11 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Hinge: Complete Oyster 614.90
Unidentified Three mammal bone w/ cut
197 4 67.174 40.174 4.6-5.2 3 Organic Food Related Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment 120.50
Mammal marks.
Unidentified Large jaw fragment w/ teeth.
Mammal Unidentified mammal.
197 4 67.176 40.176 4.6-5.2 1 Prehistoric Debitage Lithic: Chert Flake Fragment Gray, Dark 19.70
Two pieces of wood, one is
198 4 68.001 41.001 5.2-5.9 2 Organic Indeterminate Flora: Wood Wood Fragment Burned 11.00
burned
198 4 68.002 41.002 5.2-5.9 21 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Shell Coral: Fragment Coral 303.60
Fragment from the end of a
Unidentified
198 4 68.003 41.003 5.2-5.9 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment bone, no cut or butcher marks 68.40
Mammal
visible
Ceramic: Coarse
198 4 68.004 41.004 5.2-5.9 1 Historic Architectural Brick, Bat: Fragment Orange Glazed Gray: Overfired glazed brick 124.20
Earthenware
Curved body fragments, pieces
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: do not mend, interior glazed,
Earthenware Single Glazed exterior unglazed, from two
different vessels

D.23

198 4 68.006 41.006 5.2-5.9 0 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Fragment Clam n=1 3.00
Ceramic: Refined Small pipe stem fragment, no
198 4 68.007 41.007 5.2-5.9 1 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Stem White Ball Clay 1.70
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Thin, slightly flared agate ware
198 4 68.008 41.008 5.2-5.9 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Rim Sherd Agate Ware, Coarse Brown: 1750-1810 Miller et al 2000 pg. 11 0.50
Earthenware Double Glazed rim fragment
Flat fragment from a base, no
198 4 68.009 41.009 5.2-5.9 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Indeterminate: Base Sherd White Salt Glazed Indeterminate 1720-1785 www.jefpat.org 2.90
decoration visible
Small curved rim fragment with
Ceramic: Refined
198 4 68.010 41.010 5.2-5.9 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Rim Sherd Pearlware Painted Blue: Other blue swags along the interior 1775-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 1.20
Earthenware
and exterior rim
Body and rim with rouletted
198 4 68.011 41.011 5.2-5.9 2 Historic Household Creamware Rouletted Beaded dots around the rim, pieces 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 3.70
Earthenware Sherd
mend
Porcelain, Chinese Very small curved fragment, no
198 4 68.012 41.012 5.2-5.9 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Indeterminate: Body Sherd Indeterminate 0.20
Export decoration visible
Very small rim fragment with
brown painted exterior and
Porcelain, Chinese
198 4 68.013 41.013 5.2-5.9 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Hollowware: Rim Sherd Painted Blue, Brown: Indeterminate along the top of the rim, two 0.40
Export
blue X's between horizontal
lines along the interior
Body fragments with blue and
Porcelain, Chinese red leaves or petal visible on
198 4 68.014 41.014 5.2-5.9 2 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Hollowware: Body Sherd Painted Blue, Red: Indeterminate 4.60
Export the exterior, pieces do not
mend
Thin body fragments with blue
Porcelain, Chinese
198 4 68.015 41.015 5.2-5.9 2 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Hollowware: Body Sherd Painted Blue: Indeterminate painted decoration on the 0.70
Export
interior, pieces do not mend
Multiple species of coral
199 4 69.001 42.001 6.0-9.0 14 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Other Coral: Fragment Indeterminate White represented. Most likely used a 239.30
ballast. Calcium carbonate
199 4 69.002 42.002 6.0-9.0 0 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Shell Shell Fragment Indeterminate Count = 1 1.50
199 4 69.003 42.003 6.0-9.0 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Shell Shell Hinge: Complete Clam Small clam hinge. 1.30
Ostrea oyster. European flat
199 4 69.004 42.004 6.0-9.0 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Shell Shell Hinge: Complete Oyster 15.00
oyster.
203 5 76.001 47.001 3.8-4.6 4 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Indeterminate Multiple bone fragments. 24.80
Unidentified mammal w/ a
203 5 76.002 47.002 3.8-4.6 30 Organic Food Related Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment 30.40
butcher mark.
203 5 76.003 47.003 3.8-4.6 2 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Hinge: Complete Two mussels represented. 19.40
Ceramic: Coarse Glazed brick w/ a gray/clear
203 5 76.004 47.004 3.8-4.6 1 Historic Architectural Brick, Fragment Colored Glaze Gray: 67.20
Earthenware glaze.
Circular handle shaped wood
203 5 76.005 47.005 3.8-4.6 1 Historic Indeterminate Flora: Wood Indeterminate: Fragment 10.30
fragment.
203 5 76.006 47.006 3.8-4.6 1 Historic Indeterminate Flora: Wood Indeterminate: Fragment Flat wood fragment. 2.90
Baluster stem w/ tear drop.
203 5 76.007 47.007 3.8-4.6 1 Historic Household Glass: Lead Stemware: Baluster Colorless Free Blown 1690-1730 Charleston, 1984 pg. 98-99 50.20
Engish lead glass.

203 5 76.009 47.009 3.8-4.6 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: Multiple vessels represented. 10.70
Molded
Ceramic: Coarse Molded handle fragment w/
203 5 76.010 47.010 3.8-4.6 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Handle Redware Pattern: Brown, Dark: 7.80
Earthenware ridges.
Double Glazed
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Incised line on exterior. Drip of
203 5 76.011 47.011 3.8-4.6 1 Historic Household Pan: Rim Sherd Redware Brown: Guttered 23.50
Earthenware Single Glazed glaze on exterior.
Slip Light brown glaze on interior w/
Ceramic: Coarse Decorated: yellowed spalled slip decoration
203 5 76.012 47.012 3.8-4.6 1 Historic Household Pan: Rim Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: Trailed & Combed Slip Guttered 1870 9.30
Earthenware Dark Patches w/ Dark patches in glaze. Engine
in Glaze turned lines on exterior rim.
Slip
Brown glaze on interior w/ Dark
Ceramic: Coarse Decorated:
203 5 76.013 47.013 3.8-4.6 1 Historic Household Pan: Rim Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: Indeterminate Guttered brown slip deocration w/ dark 1870 10.80
Earthenware Copper
green copper highlights.
Highlights
Slip
Ceramic: Coarse Trailed slip on interior is mostly
203 5 76.014 47.014 3.8-4.6 1 Historic Household Pan: Rim Sherd Redware Decorated: Yellow: Trailed Slip 1870 11.00
Earthenware spalled.
Single Glazed
Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Obvious From a large hollowware. Thick
203 5 76.015 47.015 3.8-4.6 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Rim Sherd Redware Brown: 62.30
Earthenware Single Glazed Use Wear body. Light use wear on rim.
Ceramic: Coarse
205 5 77.001 46.001 6.7-7.2 1 Historic Architectural Brick, Fragment Red 14.70
Earthenware
205 5 77.002 46.002 6.7-7.2 1 Historic Household Redware Brown, Dark: Everted Everted rim. 38.40
Earthenware Sherd Double Glazed
Ceramic: Coarse Hollowware: Base/Body Lead Glazed: Pedestaled Obvious
205 5 77.003 46.003 6.7-7.2 1 Historic Household Redware Black: Light use wear on ext. base. 19.70
Earthenware Sherd Double Glazed Foot Use Wear
Ceramic: Coarse Terra-cotta roofing tile
205 5 77.004 46.004 6.7-7.2 220 Historic Architectural Tile: Fragment Redware 23110.00
Earthenware fragments.

D.24

Quercus (White Wood sample. White Oak Type.
224 5 78.001 50.001 5.1 12 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Wood Wood Fragment 5.70
Oak) Quercus Species.
Unidentified Bone fragment, no cut or
113 S1/2 3 51.001 34.001 3.35 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment 25.70
Hollowware with small flared
rim the body starts to taper
outwards, curved, dark brown
Hollowware: Body/Rim
113 S1/2 3 51.002 34.002 3.35 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Nottingham Type Rouletted Brown: Flare at the rim and becomes lighter 1690-1800 www.jefpat.org 16.70
Sherd
brown towards the body,
ombre, rouletted with a zig-zag
patter around the body
Body fragment with green
glazed interior, unglazed
Ceramic: Coarse Iberian Coarse Lead Glazed:
113 S1/2 3 51.003 34.003 3.35 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Green: X exterior, cord-made vessel with 35.50
Earthenware Earthenware Single Glazed
lines still visible, probably North
Devon
Round body and base fragment,
Ceramic: Coarse Hollowware: Base/Body Lead Glazed: Pedestaled small tooled flat pedestal base,
113 S1/2 3 51.004 34.004 3.35 1 Historic Household Redware Brown: Stained 17.70
Earthenware Sherd Double Glazed Foot interior and exterior glazed,
gray/black staining on interior
Body tapers inward slightly,
Dark Patches
Ceramic: Coarse glazed interior with dark
113 S1/2 3 51.005 34.005 3.35 1 Historic Household Pan: Body/Rim Sherd Red Bodied in Glaze: Single Brown: Speckled 42.10
Earthenware speckles in glaze, unglazed
Glazed
exterior
Footring,
general Ceramic: Refined Teaware, General: Base Free-
GC 3 61.002 19.002 1 Historic Household Pearlware Painted Earth Tone Colors: Floral Likely a saucer or tea cup. 1795-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 4.70
collection Earthenware Sherd Standing
Wedge
Possibly a breakfast cup but not
general Ceramic: Refined Hollowware: Body/Rim enough of the vessel remains to
GC 3 61.003 19.003 1 Historic Household Creamware Indeterminate 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 8.60
collection Earthenware Sherd definitively identify form. No
decoration visible.
Partial pipe bowl with heel
general Ceramic: Refined
GC 3 61.004 19.004 1 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Bowl White Ball Clay Charred present. Slight charring on the 5.50
collection Earthenware
interior of the bowl. (6/64 dia.)
Light tan salt glazed on interior
general Salt Glazed, Gray/Buff and exterior. Not Bristol slip.
GC 5 80.001 23.001 3 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Bottle: Base/Body Sherd Buff w/ self 225.50
collection Bodied Two sherds mend but all three
likely belong to the same bottle.
general Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Interior glazed; exterior
GC 5 80.004 23.004 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: 11.70
collection Earthenware Single Glazed unglazed.
general Small sherd with no decoration
GC 5 80.002 23.002 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Indeterminate: Rim Sherd White Salt Glazed Indeterminate 1720-1785 www.jefpat.org 0.50
collection visible.
GC 5 80.003 23.003 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Rim Sherd Tin Glazed Painted Blue: Banded Two blue bands visible. 1682-1800 cities/Philadelphia-History.html, Azizi 2.80
et al 1996
Footring,
Large free standing base. Likely
general Porcelain, Chinese Free-
GC 5 80.005 23.005 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Hollowware: Base Sherd Indeterminate belonging to a medium/large- 4.30
collection Export Standing
sized hollowware.
Round
general
GC 5 80.006 23.006 3 Historic Architectural Glass: Common Glass Window Glass: Fragment Aqua 1.00
collection
general
GC 5 80.007 23.007 0 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Fragment Oyster N=1 3.00
collection
general Femur bone of a medium sized
GC 2 44.001 6.001 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Indeterminate 39.50
collection mammal.
Large bone fragment of a
general
GC 2 44.002 6.002 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Indeterminate medium sized animal, possibly 64.20
collection
part of the scapula or pelvis.
general Large mammal bone, possibly a
collection carpal.
general Small bone fragments from a
collection mammal.
general
GC 2 44.005 6.005 1 Organic Food Related Fauna: Shell Shell Hinge: Complete Clam, Quahog 61.50
collection
general Ceramic: Coarse Hollowware: Base/Body Lead Glazed:
GC 2 44.005 6.005 2 Historic Household Redware Brown, Dark: w/ self Interior glazed. 72.90
collection Earthenware Sherd Single Glazed
general Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed:
GC 2 44.006 6.006 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Base Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: Interior glaze. 20.00
collection Earthenware Single Glazed
general Ceramic: Coarse Lead Glazed: Thick, flat redware sherd of kiln
GC 2 44.007 6.007 1 Historic Manufacturing Kiln, Furniture: Fragment Burned 156.90
collection Earthenware Single Glazed furniture.
Footring,
general Molded Free- Faint molded ribs on interior
GC 2 44.008 6.008 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Saucer: Base/Body Sherd Porcelain, Hard Paste Ribbed 11.40
collection Pattern Standing body.
Round

D.25

pattern on interior. There is a
painted pattern on the exterior
but it is unidentified. There is a
brown/yellow overglazed
Molded painted line on top of the rim.
general Hollowware: Body/Rim
GC 2 44.009 6.009 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Porcelain, Hard Paste Pattern: Blue, Brown: Other Scalloped Body is molded with light ribs. 1765-1820 Madsen & White 1999 pg. 102 3.10
collection Sherd
Painted
The painted pattern on exterior
includes two extra birds. Dates
are based on the dates for the
Naking shaded trellis,
form.
Pipe stem fragment with small
section of the pipe bowl also
visible with two vertical molded
general Ceramic: Refined Molded
GC 1 39.001 15.001 1 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Pipe Stem White Ball Clay Other Stained lines and two horizontal molded 4.00
collection Earthenware Pattern
band around the bowl, small
black stain on the stem (5/64
dia.)
general Ceramic: Refined Slightly curved body fragment,
GC 1 39.002 15.002 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Whiteware Indeterminate 1815 2.20
collection Earthenware no decoration visible
Curved body fragment with one
GC 1 39.003 15.003 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Whiteware Other thin molded band around the 1815 2.40
exterior
Small curved rim fragment with
two thin brown bands with two
general Ceramic: Refined shades of brown visible on
GC 1 39.004 15.004 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Rim Sherd Whiteware Dipt Brown, Blue: Banded 1815-1920 Azizi et al 1996, www.jefpat.org 2.90
collection Earthenware exterior rim with light blue dipt
band below them, no
decoraiton visible on interior
Scalloped rim fragment with
green painted feathers around
Molded the rim with several rows of fish
GC 1 39.005 15.005 1 Historic Household Plate: Rim Sherd Pearlware Pattern: Green: Fish Scale and Feathers Scalloped scales below the line of 1820-1835 Miller et al 2000 pg. 13 6.90
Painted feathers, Fish Scale & Feathers
pattern, no enough to
determine diameter
Footring,
general Ceramic: Refined Free-
GC 3 61.001 19.001 1 Historic Household Saucer: Base/Body Sherd Pearlware Painted Blue: China Glaze X Part of a pagoda visible. 1775-1810 www.jefpat.org 24.00
collection Earthenware Standing
Wedge
general Ceramic: Refined Most likely a plate. Bath style
GC 4 70.009 48.009 1 Historic Household Tableware, General Creamware Indeterminate Bath 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 6.50
collection Earthenware rim w/ largely spaced scallops.
GC 4 70.010 48.010 1 Historic Household Tableware, General Creamware Paneled Molded panels on interior. 1762-1820 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 3.60
general Molded Sherds mend. Molded floral
GC 4 70.011 48.011 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Stoneware Hollowware: Body Sherd White Salt Glazed Floral 1740-1770 www.jefpat.org 1.40
collection Pattern decoratoin on exterior.
Interior glazed; exterior
GC 5 79.001 33.001 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: unglazed. Tie-down line visible 50.60
on exterior.
Slip
general Ceramic: Coarse British Buff-Bodied 4 wavy slip lines visible on the
GC 5 79.002 33.002 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Decorated: Brown: Trailed Slip 1670-1795 Azizi et al 1996 4.70
collection Earthenware Slipware exterior of the sherd.
Double Glazed
general Coral fragment. Indeterminate
GC 4 70.001 48.001 1 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Other Coral: Fragment 11.70
collection species.
general Unidentified bird bone
GC 4 70.002 48.002 2 Organic Indeterminate Fauna: Bone Bone: Fragment Burned 15.70
collection fragments. Burned.
general Ceramic: Refined Broken on both ends. (3/32
GC 4 70.003 48.003 1 Historic Personal Smoking Pipe: Stem White White Ball Clay 2.20
collection Earthenware dia.)
general
GC 4 70.004 48.004 1 Historic Architectural Metal: Iron Nail: Complete Cut Rusted 1790-1890 Wells 2000 pg. 323-325 14.40
collection
general Wood fragment. Cut on both
GC 4 70.005 48.005 1 Historic Indeterminate Flora: Wood Wood Fragment Burned 25.70
collection ends. Burned.
general
GC 4 70.006 48.006 1 Historic Household Ceramic: Porcelain Indeterminate: Rim Sherd Porcelain, Hard Paste Indeterminate 0.30
collection
GC 4 70.007 48.007 2 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Whiteware Indeterminate Two vessels represented. 1815 4.30
Footring,
general Ceramic: Refined Indeterminate: Base/Body Free- Painted green leaves on
GC 4 70.008 48.008 1 Historic Household Pearlware Painted Green: Floral 1795-1830 Miller et al 2000 pg. 12 6.40
collection Earthenware Sherd Standing interior.
Wedge
GC 4 70.012 48.012 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Redware Brown: 18.50
GC 4 70.013 48.013 1 Historic Household Indeterminate: Body Sherd Redware Black: 9.20
GC 4 70.014 48.014 1 Historic Household Hollowware: Body Sherd Redware Brown, Dark: 2.70
collection Earthenware Double Glazed

D.26

Slip Use wear on rim. Coggled rim.
general Ceramic: Coarse Obvious
GC 4 70.015 48.015 1 Historic Household Dish: Body/Rim Sherd Redware Decorated: Yellow: Trailed Slip Coggled Yellow trailed slip running 1870 97.40
collection Earthenware Use Wear
Single Glazed perpendicular to rim.
dsfadf

D.27
Appendix E. Qualifications of Authors

E.1
Joel Dworsky
Archaeologist/Geospatial Analyst
Areas of Expertise Summary

Historic Archaeology Mr. Dworsky joined AECOM in 2012 and has 14 years of experience in archaeology and
cultural resources management. He has participated in the excavation of sites throughout
Geographic Information New England, the Mid-Atlantic, and Bermuda. As an archaeological principal investigator
Systems (GIS) at AECOM, his responsibilities include overseeing fieldwork, client consultation, and
report preparation. Mr. Dworsky also works as a GIS specialist wherein he conducts a
GPS Systems variety of spatial analyses (predictive modeling, cut/fill, landscape reconstruction, as-built
road analysis, GIS palimpsest analysis) as well as collecting and preparing GPS data,
Database Management and managing GIS databases. Mr. Dworsky is responsible for ensuring the accurate
integration of field and laboratory data into a cohesive and comprehensive GIS database
Section 106 of the to facilitate spatial analysis. Mr. Dworsky’s experience encompasses pre-contact, historic,
National Historic and industrial archaeology.
Preservation Act/NEPA
Phase I, II, & III

Selected Project Specific Experience
Archaeological Surveys
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission NE Ext. MP 37-44 - Principal Investigator,
and Excavations and
Archaeologist, GIS Analyst, Author – Work consisted two Phase III archaeological
analysis
investigations at sties along the Pennsylvania Turnpike in Buck County, PA near
Quakertown. Excavations produced more than 30,000 precontact artifacts and more than
Artifact Analysis
60 features. Field excavation (Phase III), artifact analysis, spatial analysis and report
preparation.
Background/Historical
Research
Hagerstown Regional Airport - Principal Investigator, Archaeologist, GIS Analyst,
Author – Phase I-III archaeological investigations at the Brumbaugh Kendall Grove
Human Osteology
Farmstead in Washington County Maryland. Excavations were performed in advance the
Education demolition of a historic structure. Field Excavation (Phase I-III), GIS Palimpsest analysis,
Background Research, Archaeological Monitoring and Report Preparation.
M.A./Anthropology,
Archaeology/College of I-84 Hartford - Archaeologist, GIS Analyst, Author – Conducted a cultural resource
William and Mary/2010 assessment of the archaeological rescores which was utilized as part of an alternatives
analysis. Conducted and As-built road analysis, GIS palimpsest analysis, Cut/Fill analysis
B.A./2005/Millersville
in order to derive an archaeological sensitivity and Archaeological potential designation
University/Archaeology,
for properties within the proposed APE. Made recommendations about the need for future
Anthropology
cultural resources work associated with the undertaking.
Licenses/Registrations New Haven Downtown Crossing – Principal Investigator, Archaeologist, GIS Analyst,
Primary Author – Phase IB archaeological survey of a proposed realignment and
Register of Professional expansion of I-34 in downtown New Haven Connecticut performed on behalf of the
Archaeologists Connecticut DOT. Drafted report containing archaeological and historical background,
results of exploratory testing as well as recommendations about the need for future
Years of Experience cultural resource work.
With AECOM 5 Archaeological Investigations of the I-95/Girard Ave. Improvements Project,

With URS 3 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania - GIS Lead, Archaeologist - Study conducted for the
With Other Firms 6 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, Engineering District 6-0. Manages the
database which contains all of the plotted excavation data for the ongoing Phase IB, II,
Professional and III archaeological investigations along a three-mile long portion of the Interstate 95
Associations highway corridor. Have also overseen the creation the 3-D reconstruction of historic
landscape and built environment to aid in interpretation and spatial analysis.
Council for Northeast
Historical Archaeology, Bartram’s Mile Monitoring Project - Archaeologist, Field Archaeologist, GIS analyst &
2009-Present Author – Oversaw the mechanical stripping of areas along the western bank of the
Philadelphia Schuylkill River in Philadelphia, PA in advance of the construction of a recreational trail.
Archaeological Forum, Discovered intact historic railroad buildings and registered a site. Worked with the PA
2009-Present SHPO to preserve the resource and incorporate it into the project design.

E.1
Training and U.S. Coastguard Station Shinnecock - Principal Investigator, Archaeologist, GIS
Certifications Analyst, Author – Phase IA/B archaeological survey for the proposed construction of a
new facility at U.S. Coastguard Station Shinnecock. Field Survey, GIS Palimpsest
Advisory Council on analysis, Background Research, Archaeological Monitoring and Report Preparation.
Historic Preservation -
Section 106 Essentials Wyck house – Principal Investigator, Archaeologist, GIS Analyst, Author –
Training, 2016 Archaeological Monitoring for the historic fence restoration effort as the Wyck House in
Germantown, Philadelphia, Pa. Background Research, Archaeological Monitoring and
OSHA 29 CFR 1910.120 Report Preparation.
HAZWOPER 40-Hour
Certification Course, 2009 NPS 2nd Bank Block – Principal Investigator, Archaeologist, GIS Analyst, Author –
Archaeological Monitoring of storm water drainage system upgrade at the NPS 2nd Bank
historic park. GIS Palimpsest analysis, Background Research, Archaeological Monitoring
8-Hour Annual
and Report Preparation.
HAZWOPER Refresher
Course (AECOM
Japanese Bazaar – Archaeologist/Primary Author – Compiled the report on the
Corporation, 2014)
excavation at the site of the Japanese Bazaar which was part of the 1876 Centennial
Williams Pipeline Safety Exhibition in Fairmount park, Philadelphia. The report described the findings of the GPR
Training survey, shovel testing survey and test unit excavations conducted during the summer of
Shell Safety Training 2015 and provided options for future work and site interpretation.
Consol Energy Safety Carr Garden Phase IB & II Investigation – Archaeologist/Primary Author - Compiled a
Training unified report for two surveys conducted at Bartram’s Garden Park, Philadelphia,
PEC- Safe Gulf/ Safe Land Pennsylvania. The report described shovel testing conducted in advance of geothermal
USA Training well boring and the Phase II effort focused on a historic garden restoration.
Lake Lenape Dam – Principal Investigator, Archaeologist, GIS Analyst, Author – Phase
Ia and Monitoring of the Lake Lenape Dam West Embankment repair effort on behalf of
Atlantic County, NJ. Field Survey, GIS Palimpsest analysis, Background Research,
Archaeological Monitoring and Report Preparation.
ACE PHI Churchtown/Deepwater – Principal Investigator, GIS Analyst, Primary Author

- Phase 1b survey of a power line corridor for Atlantic City Electric in advance of the
installation of new high voltage monopole electrical towers in Salem County, NJ.
Penn East Pipeline – Archaeologist/GIS Analyst - Designed and help to implement a

shovel testing strategy for the Phase 1 testing of miles of pipeline ROW that comprise the
project APE. Managed and updated the GIS with data coming in from the field and
generated new route recommendations based on that data. FERC compelled the section
106 survey of this area in advance of the construction of a gas pipeline proposed by UGI
Company.
New Haven CATEX – Principal Investigator, Archaeologist, GIS Analyst, Primary Author
- Archaeological assessment of a proposed realignment and expansion of I-34 in
downtown New Haven Connecticut performed on behalf of the Connecticut DOT. Drafted
report containing archaeological and historical background and archaeological sensitivity
assessments, GIS palimpsest analysis, as well as recommendations about the need for
future cultural resource work.
Capitol Corridor Rail Transit Study – Principal Investigator, Archaeologist, GIS Analyst,
and Primary Author - Tier 1 NEPA study of a rail transportation corridor for and proposed
commuter rail station locations performed on behalf of the NHDOT and MASS DOT.
Drafted report containing archaeological and historical background, GIS palimpsest
analysis, and archaeological sensitivity assessments for a roughly 70-mile project
corridor as well as recommendations about the need for future cultural resource work.
New Jersey American Water Raritan-Millstone Flood Wall Control Project –

Archaeologist, GIS Analyst, Principal Author - Phase 1a Archaeological Survey.
Conducted archaeological/historical background research, literature survey, GIS
palimpsest analysis, and field reconnaissance to assess the potential impact of the
proposed modification and expansion the flood control walls at New Jersey American
Water’s wastewater treatment plant located at the confluence of the Millstone and Raritan
Rivers in Somerset County, NJ.

E.2
Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission – Archaeologist, Author - Phase IB Archaeological

Survey for the PTC Turnpike Total Milepost 312 To 31. Co-authored and prepared the
addendum report to the initial Phase IB archaeological assessment which included the
identification analysis of two sites in Chester County, PA, one prehistoric and the other
19th century historic.
Sunbury Transmission Line Project, Sunbury, Pennsylvania. – Archaeologist/GIS

Analyst - Designed and help to implement a shovel testing strategy for the Phase 1 testing
of 33 miles of pipeline ROW that comprise the project APE. Managed and updated the
GIS with data coming in from the field and generated new route recommendations based
on that data. FERC compelled the section 106 survey of this area in advance of the
construction of a gas pipeline proposed by UGI Company.
Bartram’s Garden Monitoring Project - Archaeologist, Field Archaeologist, GIS analyst

& Author - Oversaw the mechanical stripping of areas adjacent to a known prehistoric site
along the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia, PA. Discovered new components to the known
site. Excavated, mapped and reported new findings in a report addendum.
ANF Survey SWEPI LP WT 3801 Well – Archaeological Crew Chief – Conducted a

Phase I archaeological survey of a proposed well pad location in Allegheny National
Forest. Conducted shovel testing across nearly a mile of woodland and recorded data
using GPS handset.
Constitution Pipeline Project, New York and Pennsylvania. - Field Archaeologist and
GIS Specialist, Principal Data Manager - Phase I survey of a more than 200 mile stretch
of northern PA and central NY. FERC conducted the Section 106 survey of this area in
advance of the construction of a gas pipeline proposed by Williams Gas Company. The
survey uncovered many prehistoric and historic sites many of which are awaiting Phase
II investigation. Designed and help to implement a shovel testing strategy for the Phase
1 testing of the pipeline ROW that comprised the project APE. Managed and updated the
GIS with data coming in from the field and generated new route recommendations based
on that data.
General Electric Hudson River Project, Fort Edward, New York - Field archaeologist
and GIS specialist – Conducted a Phase Ib survey of the Hudson River in the advance
of dredging by General Electric. This shore survey was conducted to insure no sites were
adversely affected by potential slumping of the riverbank if undermined by dredging
activity in the river channel. In addition to the Phase I work, a Phase II study was
conducted at Fort Miller, a French and Indian War era fort, located near Lock 5 on the
Hudson River. This site was first investigated during the Phase I survey and received
further testing because of a proposed processing plant for the decontamination of
dredged soils. This Phase II investigation revealed the remains of the builder’s trench and
posts that comprised two palisade walls, as well as several pit features that contained
military artifacts, burnt timbers, and period ceramics. This site is of importance because
it was a small provisioning fort for the larger forts upstream and no fort of its kind from
this period has been studied. At the present it is unknown if the client will push for a Phase
III data collection.
Richard Grubb and Associates
Archaeological Investigations at French Town, New Jersey - Field Technician - The

work was done for the ACOE and preceded the expansion of an existing sewage
treatment plant adjacent to the Delaware River. This Phase II investigation consisted of
two deep 2x2 meter test units in deep flood plain soil terminating nearly 2 meters below
ground surface. One test unit revealed evidence of Early Archaic occupations in one of
the deepest buried “A” horizons.
College of William and Mary
Archaeological Investigations at Whitehall/The John Trimmingham Site, St.

Georges, Bermuda - Field Foreman/Teaching Assistant - Performed for the Bermuda
National Trust, National Museum of Bermuda, and the St. George Foundation. The work
was done as a Phase II investigation of some foundation deposits discovered during the
resurfacing of a road in the historic downtown district of St. Georges. The subsequent

E.3
Phase II testing project undertaken by the College of William and Mary revealed a partial
foundation dating to the 17th century. Documentary research revealed the owner of the
parcel as one John Trimmingham, a prominent member of colonial St. Georges. One of
the most interesting discoveries was two fully articulated bovine carcasses that had been
buried beneath a collapsed wall of the house. It turns out that these bovines had suffered
from hoof and mouth and were unceremoniously slaughtered and the walls of a ruin push
on top of them. This is the only know instance of a livestock burial ever found on the
island.
Millersville University
Millersville University Atlantic World Project, Southampton Parish, Bermuda. –

Archaeological Field foreman, Instructor, Research Director, Lab Director. - This work was
done for the National Museum of Bermuda and the Bermuda National Trust as well as
the DuPont Foundation. The project consisted of the Phase I & II survey of Dickinson
Store site (c. 1730-1800), SN Bermuda, the Phase I survey of the Rectory site (c. 1760-
present), SN, Bermuda and the Phase I survey of the Perot Site, Bermuda. The purpose
of this project was to examine the homes and store houses of Bermudian merchants
known to have ties with Philadelphia merchants. The goal was to seek out evidence of
smuggled non-English materials at these sites and/or material links back to Philadelphia.
This was part of a larger effort to examine colonial Atlantic trade both legal and illicit from
all its aspects including: the nodes of production, distribution and terminal markets.
Archaeological evidence corroborated the documentary accounts of Bermudian
smuggling recorded by various government officials both Bermudian and foreign. This
archaeological survey laid the groundwork for a subsequent Phase II research project.
Millersville University Lancaster Colonial Settlement Project, Lancaster PA. –

Archaeological Field Foreman, Instructor, Research Director, Lab Director. This was done
on behalf of Millersville University and the DuPont Foundation. The purpose of this project
was to demonstrate the importance of Lancaster County, PA as a culture hearth for the
western settlement of the nation. To that end a variety of sites were investigated to
illuminate the settlement history of Lancaster County. A series of three locations
underwent Phase I survey.
Mylin Gun shop - the alleged birth place of the Pennsylvania Long Rifle and the
homestead of one of Lancaster original settlers, was the initial focus of the project. This
survey tested the area surrounding a small building currently hailed as the Mylin gun
shop. The survey demonstrated that despite the popular perception, the building was in
reality an 18th century blacksmith shop and was not used for gunsmithing. The original
homestead of Martin Mylin, the long rifles alleged creator and one of the first settlers in
Lancaster, was not discovered during survey.
Logan Trading Post - The Phase I survey upstream of the confluence of the Big and
Little Conestoga Rivers. This was the supposed location of James Logan trading post
(Logan was William Penn’s principal Indian agent). The survey revealed several areas of
historic activity but nothing dating to that early 17th century period. The search zone was
narrowed to just a few small acres, but due to lack of landowner permission the project
proceeded no further.
Elizabeth Furnace Plantation – Archaeological Field Supervisor, Historian, Instructor,

Lab-Director, Conservationist - Conducted Phase I-III archaeological survey at Elizabeth
Furnace Iron Plantation, in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. The survey revealed the
presence of more than 13 standing early and mid-18th century structures as well as a
variety of subsurface features including a furnace race and the blast furnace. The
subsurface feature that was eventually identified as a furnace race after Phase III
excavation was initially identified utilizing a soil resistivity meter operated by Mr. Dworsky
whereas the location of the blast furnace was identified with the aid of GPR. This furnace
race adjacent to the Huber House, c. 1742, became the focus of a Phase II and Phase
III investigation which yielded a variety of sealed 18th century strata. The artifacts
recovered during the Phase III data collection enabled the discussion of enculturation in
the mid-18th century display a shift in immigrant identity from a mostly Germanic identity
to a more Anglicized outlook, which was accompanied by a corresponding shift in the
preference of material goods.

E.4
Subsequent Phase II & Phase III testing of a barracks and adjoining summer kitchen
revealed a massive bone midden which housed the remains of the meals from the 75
Hessian prisoners of war that were housed and worked at the furnace after the battle of
Trenton. This bone midden revealed the use of primarily communal/yeoman food ways
(i.e. Stews, soups) and a mixed diet including all kind of meat from pig, cow, horse, and
deer to poultry. This season also saw the excavation of well associated with the
ironmaster’s house, an excavation which provided many well-preserved examples of the
furnace’s castings in addition to an array of organic artifacts.
Selected Papers and Presentations
Dworsky, Joel G.
2005 “Pennsylvania Colonial Iron Production at Elizabeth Furnace: An
Archaeological and Historical Analysis” Middle Atlantic Archaeological
Conference. Virginia Beach, Virginia.
Trussell, Timothy and Joel Dworsky.

2007 Deep-Well Excavation: An Archaeological Case Study. Journal of Middle
Atlantic Archaeology Volume 23:61-72.
Dworsky, Joel G.
2011 Ghosts on the coast of paradise: Identifying and interpreting the ephemeral
remains of Bermuda's 18th century shipyards. Master’s Thesis: College of
William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA.
Dworsky, Joel G.
2015 Washington Stepped Here. Philadelphia Archaeological Forum, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania.
Dworsky, Joel G.
2015 Working on the Railroad: The Enigma of a Late 19th Century Railroads
Bunkhouse. Philadelphia Archaeological Forum, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Chronology
2015-Present - Archaeologist and Geospatial Analyst, AECOM Corporation
Burlington, New Jersey.
2012-2015 – Archaeologist and Geospatial Analyst, URS Corporation
Burlington, New Jersey.
2010-2011: Field Technician, Richard Grubb and Associates, Cranbury, New
Jersey
2010 – Field Supervisor, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Virginia
2005-2009 - Field Supervisor and Lab Manager, Millersville University,
Millersville, Pennsylvania.
Contact Information
Company: AECOM
Address: 437 High Street
Burlington, New Jersey 08016
Tel: 609.386.5444
Direct: 609.386.5444, Ext 127
Cell: 609 977 5729
Fax: 609.386.6994
Email address: joel.dworsky@aecom.com

E.5
437 High Street

Burlington, NJ 08016
aecom.com

E.6

E.7
Archaeological
Investigations of the
Vine Street Lot /
West Shipyard Site
LATE-17TH CENTURY BEGINNINGS
Penny Pot House and Landing / West Shipyard
Penny Pot Tavern & Landing and Griscom’s Academy

William L. Breton 1830
Vine and Water Streets

SHIPBUILDING PERIOD ca. 1690 - 1760
○ 1690’s – James West

established a Shipyard on a 100’
wide water lot north of Vine
Street
○ 1720’s - Other shipwrights and
related crafts people had taken 1750
up occupation of the project
area
• Notable shipwrights included:
Michael Hulings, James
Porteus, Joseph Lynn, Charles
West, William Taylor,
Christopher Smith, and Jacob
Casdorf.
1762
MERCANTILE PERIOD ca. 1760 - 1850
○ Mid 18 th century -
Merchants began moving
into the area as the city
expanded north.
• Lumber merchants north
of Wood Street steps,
salt, flour, ship
provisions, and
commission merchants
to the south.
• Landscape dotted by
small alleys, stores and
warehouse
○ By 1800 the wharves had
largely been built out as far
as modern Columbus Blvd.
1794 1800
GREAT CONFLAGRATION / RECONSTRUCTION
o July 9, 1850, a warehouse at 139

Water St., between Vine and Race
Streets, caught fire igniting stores of
saltpeter on the first floor
o Explosion spread the fire
throughout the surrounding area;
367 houses and businesses
destroyed; properties as far west
as 4th Street, as far south as
Race Street, and north beyond
Callowhill were damaged.
o Damage from this fire totaled
over $1.5 million in 1850
o Insurance records show that the
entire Vine Street lot was destroyed.
o Site reconstructed over the next
2 years with new building
configurations; Delaware Ave.
extended north along the east
side of the site.
1859
LATE 19TH CENTURY TO PRESENT
o By the 1870’s area between

the rebuilt merchant houses
infilled with a large market in
the south.
o Fruit warehouse and domestic
/ commercial buildings
replaced the lumber yard
north of Wood Street
o By the early 20th century the
whole block had been razed to
establish a railyard for the
Pennsylvania Railroad.
o By 1969 the property was
acquired by the Hertz Rent-a-
Car company; late 1980s all
buildings removed and
property converted to a
municipal parking lot.
1895 1916
PRIOR ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVESTIGATIONS
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA - 1987
CITY OF PHILADELPHIA - 1987
DRWC / JOHN MILNER ASSOCIATES - 2012
Layer of woodworking waste and hardware.
Logs forming part of a grillage wharf.

DUE DILIGENCE WORK TO DATE
• Public Meeting 1 (Due Diligence Plan): May 23, 2019
• Due Diligence Trench Work: July- August 2019
• 2 Open Houses: July 26th and August 26th

• More than 170 attendees
• Public Meeting 2 (Report of Due Diligence Findings):

December 2nd, 2019
DUE DILIGENCE ARCHAEOLOGICAL TESTING PLAN
• Plan reviewed and approved by PHC and PA SHPO / PHMC;
• Intended to provide additional and more detailed information

about the types and distribution of archaeological resources
within the site;
• Data generated will be used to better inform construction plans

for the property and guide future data recovery investigations
and historic interpretation efforts
ARCHAEOLOGICAL STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED
• Adhere to established professional standards and practices, and

comply with the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commissions
Guidelines for Archaeological Investigations in Pennsylvania (2016)
• Assigned senior staff will meet the Secretary of the Interior’s

Standards for Archaeological Professionals
• Oversight performed by the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum

Commission (PHMC) and the Philadelphia Historical Commission
(PHC)
DUE DILIGENCE TESTING 2019
TESTING RESULTS
○ Due diligence testing results:

• 45 historical features
documented
• 1556 artifacts collected
• More than 170 public visitors
TRENCH 1 FINDINGS
A view of the Feature 5 tim ber in profile showing its thickness and position
relative to the Feature 1/2 foundation.
○ Trench 1
• Identified likely early 19th century wharf timbers (Context 17) in line with those
identified by Weber in 1987.
• Feature 1/2 foundation complex at end of wharf timbers
• Woodworking debris from hewing timber at interface with former river bank
• Context 88 – Another hewn timber, perpendicular to the others and deeper
• Possible pilings from a pier
Test Unit 1 Closing Plan View. Feature 1 /2
TRENCH 2 FINDINGS
○ Trench 2
• Foundation wall aligned with the
western edge of Wood Street
steps
 South side of wall had
associated pine floor with
joist beneath
• Well feature capped by floor
• Large hewn beam with mortises
and bevel cuts
TRENCH 3 FINDINGS
○ Encountered Stone Wall and

Wood floor. Wall cut into fill.
• Additional stone walls
beneath wood floor
• Wall supported by large
stone flag spread footers
○ Southwest of wall was a well
capped by mid 19th century fill
○ Several piles from a likely pier
○ Western end of the trench
encountered disturbance from
Hertz period tank, confirming
accuracy of tank disturbance
mapping
TRENCH 3
FINDINGS
TRENCH 4 FINDINGS
• Additional portion of Wall in alignment

with that seen in Trench 3 but no floor
• Area built on a thick deposit of dredge
spoil with coral
• Late 18th early 19th century foundation
and brick porch
 substantial quantity of largely intact
late 18th and early 19th century
ceramics
Southern end of Trench 4 Planview showing stone w all (Feature 42) and brick porch
( Feature 44)
TRENCH 4
FINDINGS
TRENCH 5 FINDINGS
OPEN HOUSE SITE VISITS
• July 26th and August 26th

• More than 170 attendees
INTERPRETATIONS
○ Throughout all three excavations virtually all artifacts found in all

contexts pre-date 1850, the period of the Great Conflagration
• Subsequent Grading for Railroad and Parking Lot eliminated
much of the evidence of the Late 19th century
○ Some foundations correspond with the post fire period like those
in Trench 3 and possibly Trench 2
○ Earlier foundations related to the mercantile landscape of the
late 18th and early 19th century survive
○ Additional grillage wharf related deposits survive south of Wood
St.
○ Shipbuilding / waterfront woodworking evidence throughout
entire site
○ Hertz lot building did not destroy early deposits.
ARCHAEOLOGICAL STANDARDS TO BE APPLIED
Preserve In Place
• Wherever possible significant archaeological resources will be preserved in place
and not impacted by proposed construction
Mitigation
• Where impacts cannot be avoided, disturbance to significant resources will be
mitigated by means of thorough archaeological documentation using state of the
art technologies and data gathering techniques
Report of Findings
• Information about the archaeological resources contained within the site will be
documented in a detailed professional report, which will be shared with the
public
NEXT STEPS
1. Due Diligence
a. Data Recovery Plan
2. Full Archaeological Investigation
a. Public Comment during PHC Review
b. Site Archaeological Investigation
1. Additional Public Engagement
Opportunities
3. Construction Monitoring
a. AECOM Archaeology Team On-Site
Monitoring throughout Excavation
4. Final Report
a. Publicly Available Document which will
Catalogue Findings Photos of President’s House Site Excavations, Independence Mall, 2007

Vine Street Archaeological Investigation Information

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vine Street Archaeological Investigation Information

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Due Diligence Excavations for the Vine Street Lot

DUE DILIGENCE ARCHAEOLOGICAL

The Durst Organization

The Durst Organization AECOM

DUE DILIGENCE ARCHAEOLOGICAL

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

Feature 13 (Context 49) ...................................................................................................... 5.13

The Durst Organization AECOM

Appendix C. Context Percent Contribution Tables ................................................. C.1

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

2. Project Location and General

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

Current Land Use

The Durst Organization AECOM

3. Background and Context

Paleoindian Period (Circa 10,000–8000 B.C.)

Archaic Period (Circa 8000–1800 B.C.)

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

Woodland Period (Circa 800 B.C.–A.D. 1500)

Contact Period (Circa 1500–1650)

The Durst Organization AECOM

General Philadelphia Settlement History

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

Early Waterfront Development and Shipbuilding

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

Early Mercantile Period

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Great Conflagration of 1850

The Durst Organization AECOM

Post-Great Conflagration Waterfront Redevelopment Period

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

Previous Archaeological Research

The Durst Organization AECOM

The most notable find was the discovery of a well-

The Durst Organization AECOM

structures. Underlying these foundations, at a depth of

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

The Durst Organization AECOM

Artifact Processing and Analysis

Terminus Post Quem

P probability contribution for one year

The Durst Organization AECOM